Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

To be read the Third time to-morrow.

Wandsworth Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords],

Not amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Aberdare Canal Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of Russia joining the League of Nations; and whether His Majesty's Government intends to propose an invitation being sent to the Russian Government to join the League, either through our representative on the Council or at the next meeting of the Assembly?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Ponsonby): My right hon. Friend has been unavoidably prevented from attending to-
day by his official duties, and I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the very full statement which I made in reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. Stamford) on the 21st February.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: 24.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to state the attitude of His Majesty's Government with reference to Article 36 of the Protocol of the International Court of Justice; whether he is aware that a decision of Great Britain to adhere to the principle of this article would be welcomed by every State member of the League of Nations as a definite indication that Great Britain is prepared to make the League of Nations' machinery effective in the cause of peace?

Mr. PONSONBY: I cannot at present add anything to the replies given to previous questions on the subject, which is one requiring careful consideration, and is receiving it.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not true that this has been receiving careful consideration now for over two years, and is it not time that we decided one way or the other in regard to this important question of arbitration?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY AND TURKEY (TREATY).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a copy of the recent Treaty between Germany and Turkey; and whether he has taken care to see that this Treaty in no wise conflicts with the provisions laid down in the Treaty of Lausanne, especially Article 56?

Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government have received the text of this Treaty. It does not conflict with any of the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Could not a copy be laid on the Table of the House, for the information of Members?

Mr. PONSONBY: I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIAN-TURKISH FRONTIER.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the reported tension on the Syrian-Turkish frontier and the reported movements of troops?

Mr. PONSONBY: The answer is in the negative.

Earl WINTERTON: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the inter-action of events in the mandated territories of Syria, Palestine and Iraq, respectively, he will request the Government of the French Republic to communicate to him a statement which can be given to this House regarding the situation on the Syrian-Turkish frontier?

Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government has no information of a nature to justify so unusual a procedure as addressing an inquiry to the French Government regarding the situation in the territory administered under a French mandate.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that His Majesty's Government have constantly communicated information to the French Government with regard to events that have happened on the borders of Palestine and Iraq in territories for which we have the responsibility of mandate?

Mr. PONSONBY: That may be so. His Majesty's Government do that spontaneously, and the French Government do the same.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentlemen aware that my question merely asked whether the Government will request the French Government to give similar information on this question to that which has been constantly given by His Majesty's Government to the French Government?

Mr. PONSONBY: That is the point with which I have dealt in my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.

Mr. AYLES: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can see his way to bring the information contained in the White Paper, Miscellaneous No. 5,
1910 [Cd. 6102], on the treatment of international questions of Parliaments in European countries, up to date as regards those counties in which there has been an alteration in the constitution of the country?

Mr. PONSONBY: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will request His Majesty's diplomatic representatives abroad to supply the information desired, and will consider publishing their replies as a White Paper, or placing them in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 22.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Soviet Delegation who are at present in negotiation with His Majesty's Government in London have plenipotentiary powers to conclude a definite agreement with the British Government?

Mr. PONSONBY: I would refer the hon. Member to M. Rakovsky's speech at the opening of the Conference in which he described the power and authority of his delegation.

Sir W. DAVISON: Have any representations been made by the Government to this delegation with regard to the continued abuse of the Prime Minister and the Government, and how can the hon. Gentleman expect an arrangement to be arrived at with this delegation when the authorities in Russia are making these continued attacks?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

EMBASSY PROPERTY, LONDON.

Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state what action, if any, has His Majesty's Government taken, or proposes to take, in connection with the premises formerly used as the Russian Embassy in London?

Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government have received a request from the Chargé d'Affaires of the Soviet Union Government to hand over to the latter the buildings, furniture and archives which formerly belonged to the old Russian Imperial Government and the Provisional
Government which succeeded it. His Majesty's Government have explained to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires that they have no power to compel the present possessors of such property to hand it over to him, and, further, that failing an amicable arrangement, the Soviet Government must avail itself of the ordinary legal procedure in this country. His Majesty's Government have, however, intimated both to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires and to those persons whom His Majesty's Government believe to be in actual possession of such property at this moment that, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, such of this property as actually belonged to the former Governments of Russia should be handed over to the representatives of the Soviet Union Government, which is now considered by His Majesty's Government to be the de jure successor of the old Provisional and Imperial Governments.

Viscount CURZON: Are we responsible in any way, under any Vote, for this property, and, if not, is it the business of His Majesty's Government to interfere in any way in this matter?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has this at any time ceased to be Russian soil?

Mr. PONSONBY: We are not responsible under any Vote for this property.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it the duty of the Government of this country to express an opinion on a legal matter of this sort?

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: Do the Government consider the Soviet Government the successors of the liabilities as well as the assets of the Imperial Russian Government?

Mr. PONSONBY: I think His Majesty's Government have very properly expressed the opinion they have.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it the duty of the Government to express a legal opinion?

Mr. PONSONBY: The Government have not expressed any opinion on that head. I shall be glad if hon. Members will put down any further questions.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: But did not the hon. Gentleman state that the Government had advised the present occupiers
that these premises ought to be handed over? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Was not that giving a legal opinion?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When certain claims are preferred against the Russian Government, surely that Government must be helped to get to its own archives in order to investigate the claims?

Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions had better be put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, considering that Brahmins have hitherto been nominated to represent Indian labour at the International Labour Conference at Geneva, the Secretary of State will now consult the Government of India, with a view to the appointment of members of the backward and working-classes of India to represent labour at the next conference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the discretion of Government in nominating the workers' delegate at the International Labour Conference is not unfettered, as under Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles the delegate must be chosen in agreement with the organisations most representative of the workers, if such organisations exist. In India, before a nomination is made representative organisations are consulted. As a matter of fact, however, the workers of India were represented by non-Brahmins in 1920 and 1923, and this will also be the case at this year's Conference. In 1919, 1921 and 1922 the workers' delegate was Mr. Joshi, of the Servants of India Society.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the workers' organisations in India are, for the most part, considered illegal by the Government of India?

Mr. RICHARDS: No.

Sir C. YATE: Who is representing them this year?

Mr. RICHARDS: Joseph Baptista.

Sir C. YATE: Where does he come from? Is it Bombay?

Mr. RICHARDS: Bombay, I think.

Sir C. YATE: What nationality?

IRON AND STEEL GOODS (IMPORTS).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the tonnage of iron and steel goods imported into India for the year ending 31st March, 1924, and, of this total, what percentage was British?

Mr. RICHARDS: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir F. WISE: Will the hon. Gentleman state what percentage was British?

Mr. RICHARDS: From the British Empire, 58 per cent.

Following is the reply:

Figures for the year ending 31st March, 1924, are not yet available. The following figures give the tonnage of imports, private and Government, into India during the year 1922–23 of iron and steel, including all the goods classed as "iron and steel goods" in the trade return except iron ore and pig iron, and including also the following goods classed in the trade return as "railway materials," namely, rails, chairs, fishplates, sleepers and keys of iron or steel, and bridgework:


—
Tons.
Percentage.


From British Empire (almost exclusively United Kingdom).
549,064
58.3%


From Foreign Countries
392,799
41.7%


Total
941,863
100.00%

These figures do not include particulars of iron and steel goods included in the trade returns under such heads as hardware, cutlery, machinery, locomotive engines and tenders, carriages, wagons, etc. The returns do not separately distinguish iron and steel goods under these heads; the published statistics, moreover, relate only to value of imports, not quantity.

ROADS, NORTH-WESTERN FRONTIER.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the repeated murders that have taken place on the North-Western frontier of India, and of the satisfactory results that have occurred from the making of a good motor road joining the Tochi valley with the Takki Zam and the establishment of a cantonment at Razmak, he will see his way to run a road through Tirah from Thai to some point on the Peshawar-Landikotal road via Khanki-Bazar and the Bara River valley and to establish a permanent cantonment at Khanki-Bazar as has already been done at Razmak?

Mr. RICHARDS: I appreciate the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, but there is no necessity for the construction of the road through Tirah, where the conditions that prevail are quite different from those prevailing in Waziristan, and permit of control over the tribes in this region being exercised from British territory.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no more civilising influence than the making of roads in tribal countries, and that if he wants to avoid these murders in the future, this is the only way to do it?

Mr. RICHARDS: That may be, but the position in the two cases is not analogous.

TAXATION.

Mr. SNELL: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee of Parliament, in paragraph 11 of their Report in 1919, relating to the levy of certain classes of taxation in India by executive action without, in some cases, any statutory limitation of the rates and in other cases any adequate prescription by Statute of the method of assessment; whether the same Committee's recommendation that the imposition of new burdens should be gradually brought more within the purview of the legislatures has been acted upon in any way in any part of India; and whether there have been public protests in any part of India against the impositions of additional burdens without the sanction of the Legislative Council concerned?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Government of Madras recently introduced a Bill in their Legislative Council on the lines of these recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, but it has been rejected. No such Bill has yet been introduced in any other province. I have no information of public protests of the kind mentioned at the end of the question. The Government of India will be asked for a report.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH.

Mr. SNELL: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, as a result of the capitation grant, any contribution, direct or indirect, is made by India to the maintenance of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich; if so, what is the amount of this contribution during the last three years; whether there is any order made by the War Office or by the India Office which excludes an Indian from joining this academy; and whether the whole question of the admission of Indians to these institutions will be taken up with the War Office for reconsideration?

Mr. RICHARDS: India contributes indirectly to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, through the capitation payments, but it is impossible to state the amount. This institution trains exclusively for the British Service, for which Indians are not eligible. The present policy as regards the Indian Army is to train Indians for commissioned service in infantry and cavalry, and until sufficient time has elapsed to enable the authorities to judge of the success of the present policy, it is not proposed to consider the question of their training for other arms.

MEDICAL SERVICES.

Mr. SNELL: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the recommendations of the Medical Services Committee were forwarded by the Government of India to the Secretary of State for decision some two years ago; that no decision has yet been given by the Secretary of State for India, especially about the transfer of certain appointments ordinarily held by the Indian Medical Service officers to the provincial medical services in the various provinces; that the question regarding medical research and the reduction of the
military assistant surgeons and sub-assistant surgeons, forming part of the recommendations, is still undecided; and whether, in view of the protests made lately in the Indian Legislative Assembly, he will undertake to expedite his decision?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the reply, which is somewhat long, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman considers that this delay is not seriously prejudicing the recruitment for this most important service?

Mr. RICHARDS: I should like to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this question was recently considered by the Lee Commission.

Following is the reply:

It has been found impossible to adopt the fundamental proposal of the Medical Services Committee—i.e., the creation of a single medical service in India. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a Paper showing the extent to which civil posts are now reserved for Indian Medical Service Officers in the provinces. With the addition of posts under the Central Government these number 333 as compared with 380 recommended for reservation by the Committee and 422 before the War. In the interests of economy the research service has been reduced to a skeleton cadre of six posts, all held by Indian Medical Service officers. In the case of military assistant surgeons no question of reservation arises and the provincial authorities are, I believe, in some cases effecting reductions. In regard to sub-assistant surgeons, I am not clear what information the hon. Member desires.

CAWNPORE DISTURBANCE.

Mr. SCURR: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether an official inquiry will be held into the firing of six volleys on a crowd outside a cotton mill at Cawnpore, on 4th April, causing three deaths and many injuries?

Mr. RICHARDS: An official inquiry has been made by the district magistrate, and a summary of the report made by him
appeared in the London Press on the 25th April. We have not yet received a copy of the report officially, but I will let my hon. Friend know when it arrives.

PANDIT JAGDAMBA PRASAD.

Mr. SCURR: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Pandit Jagdamba Prasad is a political prisoner in Benares Gaol, United Provinces, and that the pandit has been compelled to drive an oil mill for extracting mustard oil, and that he was blindfolded while doing so; whether such work is usually done by bullocks; and whether an inquiry will be made into the whole matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have no information as to the individual case, but will inquire. The working of an oil press is an authorised form of hard labour in Indian gaols.

Mr. SCURR: Is the hon. Member aware that information of this is contained in the report of the United Provinces Legislative Council, copies of which are in the India Office library?

Captain Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. I have desired many times to put questions relating to political prisoners in India, and I have been informed that is a matter for the Government of India, and that I could not put them on the Paper. May I ask, therefore, whether this question is in order, according to that rule?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question has already been answered. My attention had not been called to it, but I will look into the matter before further questions are put down.

LAND CESS, BOMBAY.

Mr. SCURR: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, despite a resolution passed by the Bombay Legislative Council that the land cess for the Sangola Taluka, in Sholapur district, should not be raised, find in spite of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee of 1919 that such taxes should not be increased without the consent of the Council, agriculturists are being compelled, under penalty of land forfeiture, to agree to pay
the increased cess, and that where the agriculturists have refused to pay their bullocks and implements have been attached; and whether he will see that the wishes of the Bombay Legislative Council and the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee are carried out?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have not received any information regarding the events brought to notice by my hon. Friend. The Government of India will be asked for a report.

PROVINCE OF THE BERARS.

Mr. LINFIELD: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the claim of the Nizam of Hyderabad for the rendition of the province of the Berars, which has been before the Government of India for some months, has been dealt with, or whether a committee will be appointed by the Secretary of State on which all parties to the dispute, including the Beraris, will be represented?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Secretary of State is not at present in a position to state what action has been taken upon the letter addressed to the Viceroy, nor is he prepared to state what action he himself will take in the event of this matter being brought before him.

MARRIED ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).

Sir C. YATE: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the calculations supplied to him, showing the reduction of pay inflicted on married officers serving in India, had been verified and what is the exact disparity between the home and Indian rates of pay, which is admitted in the case of each of these married officers?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have had the hon. and gallant Member's calculations verified as far as possible. In certain respects the rates do not admit of exact comparison, and the degree of disparity fluctuates with the exchange. At the approximate current rate of 1s. 5d. to the rupee, and after the deduction of British and Indian Income Tax, respectively, the comparison between married British Service officers at home and in India is as stated in the table which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


Comparison of pay per mensem of married British Service Officers at home and in India.


—
British pay and allowances converted at 1s. 5d. less Income Tax.
Indian pay less income Tax.
Superiority of Indian over British pay.



Rs.
as.
Rs.
as.
Rs.
as.


Captain
726
9
726
9
—


Captain after 15 years (2 children)
783
3
810
3
27
0


Major (2 children)
888
11
905
8
16
13


Major after 5 years (2 children)
982
14
1,000
13
17
15


Major (senior) (2 children)
1,000
0
1,048
7
48
7


Lt.-Colonel in command (2 children)
1,333
13
1,525
0
191
3

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH DEBT TO SPAIN.

Sir F. WISE: 21.
asked the Prime Minister if France has paid the whole of her War debt to Spain; and, if so, what was the amount?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the loan of 455 million pesetas advanced by a consortium of Spanish bankers to the French Government by instalments during the period March, 1918, to March, 1919. I understand that these advances have been repaid.

Sir F. WISE: Will the hon. Gentleman say when these were repaid?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is a little difficult, but I understand that the last of them were repaid in December last.

Colonel ASHLEY: What is the hon. Gentleman doing about the debt due to us from France?

Mr. GRAHAM: The question hardly bears on this, because strictly speaking this was a loan by bankers, no doubt in the form of Government support to other bankers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman raises a much larger issue which I must not now discuss.

Colonel ASHLEY: Was not this loan made by private individuals or by the Government?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, it was made to French bankers, but there does not seem to be any doubt that it was in large measure a Government arrangement.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is there any difference between bankers and citizens?

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRET TREATIES.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has discovered, since he became Foreign Secretary, any secret treaties or agreements in existence when he took office, or in existence when the War began, or entered into by His Majesty's Government since the commencement of this century?

Mr. PONSONBY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Baker) on the 3rd March. All treaties, whether secret or not at the time, have now been published or their contents are known.

Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the specific point in the question: Whether the Foreign Secretary has discovered the existence of any such treaties?

Mr. PONSONBY: That, I think, is fully dealt with in my reply.

Mr. SPENCER: Is the hon. Gentleman able to explain the specific statement of his colleague the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Jowett), that these treaties were in existence—a statement made 10 days ago at Bradford

Mr. PONSONBY: I have not seen the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (PARLIAMENTARY SEATS).

Mr. STURROCK: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is taking steps to secure the election to this House of at least one of the two Scottish Law Officers?

Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order. May I, Mr. Speaker, call you attention to the phraseology of the question, which seems to imply that the representation of constituencies in this matter is a thing which may be secured in the direction of preference to Ministers?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not take responsibility for the implication.

Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order. Ought such a question to be put down?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be imposing too severe a task upon me to censor questions in that way.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. STURROCK: In view of the vacancy in the Kelvingrove Division of Glasgow, has any effort been made to nominate one of the Scottish Law Officers?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In the meantime, are these gentlemen drawing full trade union wages?

Mr. CLYNES: I understand the work is being done, and, therefore, the proper rate of wages is being paid. The reply to the first supplementary question is in the negative.

Mr. JAMES HOPE: Have the Government no generous followers in Scotland who would gladly surrender their seats, and whose departure they would have the fortitude to survive?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question, I am afraid, is meant to be sarcastic.

Captain TUDOR REES: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to fix a limit of time within which Ministers at present without seats in this House must either be returned as Members or vacate their respective offices?

Mr. CLYNES: No such time limit could be imposed without legislation, which the Government at present do not propose to bring before the House.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it intended to continue the full remuneration of Minister, whether or not they are able to attend the
House; do not the salaries include their attendance?

Mr. REMER: Has not the House—and the work in Committee A—suffered severely from the absence of the Attorney-General, and is it not vitally necessary that the Solicitor-General should be found a seat in the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL DISARMAMENT (LIMITATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give facilities for discussion of the Motion on a further conference of the Washington Treaty Powers in the names of the hon. Members for Central Hull and North Hackney?—["That this House is of opinion that the time has come for proposals to be made by His Majesty's Government to the Powers concerned for the calling of a conference to consider the further limitation of Naval armaments, especially in those types of vessels, including surface and submarine craft of 10,000 tons displacement and less and aircraft, which are outside the scope of the Washington Agreement."]

Mr. CLYNES: I regret that, owing to the state of Parliamentary business, the Government cannot see their way to find time for the discussion of this Motion, but as the Prime Minister has already indicated, a discussion on this matter could be raised on the Estimates. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government needs no prompting on this matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister has stated in this House that he would welcome such a Resolution, and is he aware that such a Resolution cannot be brought in in Committee of Supply?

Mr. CLYNES: I can conceive of much good being done by discussion without the instrument of a Resolution, and I do not think the Prime Minister used the words in the sense mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE STRIKE (REINSTATEMENT).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is
the policy of the Government to reinstate the 2,000 policemen who were dismissed for taking part in the strike in 1919?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative, but there are certain points, apart from reinstatement, which are still under examination.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the answer of the hon. Gentleman in keeping with the terms of the letter that the Home Secretary communicated last week, giving a definite refusal without qualification in this case?

Mr. DAVIES: I have already given a full reply to the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIAL BY JURY.

Captain TUDOR REES: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether and, if so, when he proposes to restore to litigants the right of trial by jury as it existed before the War?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I have been asked to reply. I cannot add to the answer which I save to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Turner-Samuels) on the 17th March last, to the effect that an opportunity will occur to ascertain the general sense of the House, on this question when the Administration of Justice Bill comes under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 36.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to introduce the Bill providing for the allocation of the unpaid balance of the Boxer indemnity for the purposes of education; and whether, in view of the constant postponement of action in this matter, he can expedite a settlement of the Government policy in respect of it?

Mr. PONSONBY: The details have now been settled, and the Bill will be introduced at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

ASIATICS (SEGREGATION)

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether he is aware that segregation of Asiatics still prevails in the Government railways and steamers in Kenya Colony; that separate accommodation is reserved for persons of special races; and that waiting rooms, refreshment rooms, and lavatories are not open to all travellers irrespective of race; and whether steps will be taken to see that equal facilities are provided for travellers of whatever nationality who pay the same fare?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): Separate accommodation is provided in some of the matters mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, but in such cases every effort is being made to ensure that equal facilities are available for persons who pay the same fare.

INDIAN SUBJECTS (POLL TAX).

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Indian residents in Kenya Colony are refusing to pay the Poll Tax as a protest against communal franchise; whether any, and, if so, how many, such residents have been prosecuted; in how many cases the defaulters have been imprisoned; and whether in any case a sentence of imprisonment has been passed without preliminary attempts to recover the arrears by distress and sale?

Mr. THOMAS: A number of Indians in Kenya have refused to pay the Poll Tax as a protest against the white paper policy. The Poll Tax ordinance provides that persons defaulting shall be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six weeks or until payment is made if earlier, provided the magistrate is satisfied that the defaulter has the means to pay and that his default is intentional. I am not in possession of particulars of the number of Indians who have been imprisoned, but the law is being enforced impartially on defaulters of all races.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ATTACK ON BRITISH TROOPS (QUEENSTOWN).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received any further information from the Free State authorities in con
nection with the detection of those responsible for the murder and wounding of British soldiers at Queenstown?

Mr. THOMAS: I am in constant communication with the Governor of the Free State on this subject, and am satisfied they are doing everything humanly possible to bring the criminals to justice.

Sir F. HALL: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has been in communication with the Irish Government, has he asked what steps have actually been taken to secure the apprehension of these criminals?

Viscount CURZON: Is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given not in identical terms with an answer given three weeks ago, and are we to understand that no improvement has taken place in the situation since then?

Mr. BECKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in the House directly after these murders that he thought the murderers would be captured within 48 hours?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend must have been reading someone else's statement and not mine. The House generally is aware of the difficulty in this matter. Hon. Members have only to remember that the murderers of the McMahon family in Northern Ireland have not yet been caught, and you have only to remember the difficulty in catching murderers when the whole of our troops were there to appreciate the difficulty. I repeat that I am satisfied that the Free State Government are doing all they can to bring them to justice.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the large Rolls-Royce car from which the machine gun was worked has disappeared into thin air?

Mr. THOMAS: I believe the inquiry has gone to the extent of locating the Rolls-Royce car, and, apart from any feeling between North and South, everybody is desirous of bringing these people to justice. I could say more as to the particulars, but it is sufficient to say that they are doing everything they can. It is only fair for me to add that, unless the population assist in this matter, you can have no hope.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: What has the feeling between North and South to do with the murder of British soldiers?

Mr. THOMAS: I have answered a question which rather suggested that no steps had been taken, and I merely stated that there was a difficulty in bringing murderers to justice in the North as well as in the South of Ireland, and I gave an illustration to prove it.

Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not sound like a point of Order.

Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any right to challenge any hon. Member for having made a statement that steps were not being taken? That was not my supplementary question.

Mr. THOMAS: The only inference one could draw from the supplementary questions that were put to me was that those putting them were not satisfied that everything was being done.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it competent for a Minister, in answer to a question like this, which clearly has nothing to do with the North and South, to bring in a comparison with regard to the action of the North?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is most undesirable to have inferences in a matter of this kind on one side or the other.

BOUNDARY COMMISSION.

Sir F. HALL: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the effect of Article 12 of the Irish Treaty of 6th December, 1921, upon the Act passed in 1920, supported by specific guarantees by the British Government of the day establishing Northern Ireland as a separate self-governing State, consisting of the Parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone, and the Parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, he will say what course the Government proposes to take in view of the refusal of the Ulster Government, relying on the pledges given to Northern Ireland in the past, to appoint a Boundary Commissioner?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government of Northern Ireland has refused to
appoint a Boundary Commission; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government intend themselves to appoint one for the representation of Ulster on the Commission?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of Question No. 35 is in the affirmative, a despatch to that effect having been received this morning. With regard to the second part, the whole subject is receiving the immediate consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF LAUSANNE.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGG: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has now received any information as to the action taken by the Canadian Government to secure the assent of the other Dominions to publication of the correspondence between Great Britain and Canada on the Treaty of Lausanne; and whether he has informed the Dominions that Great Britain would take no objection to publication?

Mr. THOMAS: A communication on the matter has now been received from the Canadian Government and is under consideration.

Sir E. GRIGG: Has the right hon Gentleman now received the statement made by the Canadian Prime Minister in the Canadian House of Commons on 24th April, which he said he was awaiting, and in view of that statement has he informed the Canadian Government that the Government here have no objection to the publication of all the correspondence between Great Britain and Canada?

Mr. THOMAS: As I have said, a communication direct from the Canadian Government has just been received and it is being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (LABOUR RECRUITING).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement, in Report No. 1,194 of the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, that special
efforts have again been made by the political officers and mine recruiters to induce young men to go down and see the world and, incidentally, work in the gold mines in the south; if he will say what is the nature of these special efforts which are being put forth by the political officers; and whether these efforts are primarily directed towards persuading the young men to go south and see the world or to labour in the gold mines?

Mr. THOMAS: My attention has been called to the conditions under which natives of the Northern Territories are recruited for service in the gold mines, and I shall take an early opportunity of discussing the matter with the Governor of the Gold Coast, who is now on leave.

Mr. HARRIS: May we take it, in the meantime, that political officers will no longer be allowed to secure labour for the gold mines?

Mr. THOMAS: I want to be satisfied first that that is being done, and I prefer to discuss the matter with the Governor, who is now over here.

Mr. HARRIS: It states in the Government Report that that is being done.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (TAXATION).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the form and amount of taxation imposed upon the people of Nyasaland; and whether, seeing that in addition to a monetary taxation there is a further imposition of forced labour, he will state for what periods and purposes this labour exaction is, or may be, made?

Mr. THOMAS: The only tax imposed upon the natives of Nyasaland is the Hut and Poll Tax, which is paid at the rate of 6s. per hut per annum by every native who owns or occupies a hut or huts for any portion of a year, or who resides in the Protectorate for a period exceeding six months in all during any year. I have already furnished the hon. Member with copies of the Hut and Poll Tax Ordinance of 1921, and of the District Administration Ordinance of 1924, which deals with compulsory labour. He will observe from the latter that it is incorrect to speak of forced labour as a further imposition in addition to taxation. I may explain that the provisions of the Nyasa-
land Ordinance follow closely the general principles with regard to native labour which were laid down in the case of Kenya in September, 1921, and which met with the full approval of the Conference of Missionary Societies. The despatch to Kenya on the subject was laid before the House at the time in the White Paper "Command 1509."

Mr. HARRIS: Does not this Ordinance incorporate the principle which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor took exception to in so far as Kenya was concerned?

Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, I am satisfied that it follows precedent.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: 48.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Report of the delegation from the Overseas Settlement Committee which has recently visited Australia and New Zealand has yet been completed; and, if so, what steps, if any, will be taken to give publicity to its recommendations?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Report is now being printed, and will be laid before Parliament at the earliest possible date, which will certainly be not later than the end of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (IMPORT LICENCES).

Sir G. BUTLER: 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the agreement recently concluded between His Majesty's Legation at Budapest and the Hungarian Government for granting import licences for certain types of British goods to enter Hungary; whether his attention has been drawn to a similar agreement concluded by the Italian Legation at Budapest with the Hungarian Government; whether he is aware that the latter agreement affects larger quantities of goods and is wider in scope than the British agreement; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter?

Mr. LUNN: I understand that the Italian Government have concluded a formal arrangement with the Hungarian
Government as to the quantities of a large number of goods in respect of which import licences are to be issued. His Majesty's Consul-General at Budapest is constantly in communication with the authorities with a view to securing the greatest possible facilities for the importation of British goods. Up to the present, definite contingents have only been promised for a few principal classes. The hon. Member can rest assured that there will be no relaxation in the efforts which have been made hitherto, not without success, to secure advantages for British trade. I hope that the whole vexatious system of import restrictions will not long be maintained.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Sir F. WISE: 52.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the average percentage of reduction of duties given by the Dominions, respectively, for British goods imported into the Dominions in 1922 and 1923?

Mr. LUNN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given, on 29th February, to the hon. Member for Newcastle, North (Sir G. Doyle), a copy of which I am sending him. No additional information, enabling the estimates then given to be extended to later periods, is yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICF MEN (SMALL HOLDINGS).

Mr. BLACK: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether county councils are now being encouraged to provide small holdings for ex-service and other unemployed applicants; if so, how many such holdings have been provided during the past year; and whether any have been provided in Leicestershire?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): As the reply is necessarily long, and contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BLACK: Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge that in Scotland these holdings are still being given to the
workers, while in some counties in England none can be got?

Mr. SMITH: I think the hon. Member had better read the answer when it has been circulated.

Following is the answer:

As was stated in reply to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir R. Winfrey) on 13th March last, small holdings are still being provided under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, but since 31st July, 1920, the Ministry has, in the interest of economy, laid down certain rules limiting the maximum capital cost and annual loss in the case of holdings provided on land acquired since that date. As a result of these restrictions, the acquisition of additional land for the provision of holdings has practically ceased. My right hon. Friend is, however, carefully considering whether it is possible to relax these conditions. According to returns furnished by councils, up to the end of 1922, 18,600 men had been provided with small holdings since the Armistice, of whom 16,801 were ex-service men. From the returns similarly furnished at the end of 1923, 21,358 men (19,190 being ex-service men) had been provided with holdings, of whom 2,750 (2,565 ex-service men) had left for various reasons. The returns furnished at the end of 1922 did not distinguish the men who had vacated their holdings, and did not in every case include such men. For this reason, it is not possible to give exact figures of the number of men who were settled during the year 1923 in England and Wales. As regards Leicestershire, the total number settled up to the end of 1923 was 193, including 186 ex-service men, of whom 21 had vacated their holdings up to that date. I have ascertained that the number actually settled in Leicestershire during the year was 15, including 13 ex-service men, in addition to which, two of the council's existing ex-service tenants were provided with additional land during the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHES.

Mr. BLACK: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount by which the tithe holders have profited under the provisions of the Tithe Act, 1920; and whether
the whole of this sum has fallen upon the ratepayers of the parishes concerned in the form of increased rates?

Mr. SMITH: There are no available statistics as to the total amount of relief from rates accorded to clerical tithe owners by the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1920, which, I may remind the hon. Member, expires at the end of next year. The compilation of exact figures would necessitate asking specially for particulars from upwards of 10,000 parishes, and a considerable amount of labour and expense would be entailed, which, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, would be unjustifiable. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. BLACK: Are the Government proposing to do anything when the Act expires to remedy the position?

Mr. SMITH: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK PRICES, WARWICKSHIRE.

Mr. E. BROWN: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make any further statement as to the retail prices of milk in the Administrative County of Warwick and the prices paid to producers in the same area?

Mr. SMITH: My right hon. Friend is taking steps to obtain additional information in regard to the prices paid to producers, but the inquiries will necessarily take time to complete. With regard to the collection of information as to retail prices, this is carried out by the Ministry of Labour, and I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that the information at present obtained is regarded as sufficient for the purpose for which it is used, and that no further inquiries, therefore, appear to be necessary.

Mr. BECKER: Could not the hon. Gentleman ask the milk combine for the prices they pay? Is not that all the information that is required?

Mr. SMITH: I have no information that the milk combine has jurisdiction so far as Warwickshire is concerned.

WAGES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give particulars of the circumstances where an inspector of the Board found that two agricultural workers were working 63 hours and 53 hours per week for a wage of 20s., and where one labourer was receiving 17s. per week?

Mr. SMITH: In one case the man was a farm worker and milker working 62 hours a week, including Sundays, and in the second he was a general farm labourer working 52 hours per week. Both these men were able-bodied and married. My right hon. Friend has no details of the circumstances relating to the man who is receiving 17s. per week, as he was not among those interviewed personally by the Ministry's inspector.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can we have the names and all particulars of the men who are paying agricultural labourers at these scandalously sweated rates?

Mr. SMITH: I am afraid it is impossible for my right hon. Friend to give the names.

Mr. LAMBERT: As this information comes from an inspector of the Ministry of Agriulture, is not the House of Commons entitled to the information that is furnished to the Ministry by an inspector whom the taxpayer pays?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Would not this be better dealt with by passing a Minimum Wage Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL BUILDINGS (STONEWORK).

Sir JOHN BRUNNER: 60.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the large amount of money which is annually expended on repairing the stone work of national buildings, he is carrying out any research work to find a suitable preservative material?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has appointed a Committee, with a research staff, to investigate the whole problem of stone decay and the possibility of its prevention.

Mr. LORIMER: Would not the best way to deal with this matter be to pass a Smoke Abatement Bill?

Mr. JOWETT: That is a matter which should be referred to the Ministry of Health.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS (MISUSE OF REACTION).

Mr. BAKER: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Windsor Radio Society has been informed that wireless sets at Windsor are adversely affected by serious oscillation; and whether he will state what practical steps he can take to minimise this nuisance in this and other districts?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): No complaints have been received by the Post Office concerning interference with the reception of broadcast programmes in the Windsor district by the misuse of reaction by persons in possession of valve receiving sets. Such misuse is generally the result of want of knowledge; and the British Broadcasting Company, the wireless societies, the wireless trade and the Post Office are endeavouring in various ways to promote the more careful use of apparatus in this respect. The Post Office has made representations to a number of persons who are suspected of causing interference; and, as a last resource, a wireless licence could be cancelled in any case in which the persistent misuse of reaction could be proved.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (CONTROL).

Mr. BAKER: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the proposal to broadcast the speech at the opening of the Empire Exhibition at Wembley led to an enormous increase in the sale of wireless apparatus, as a result of which the Marconiphone firm exhausted their stock; and whether, having regard to the profits which are being made, he is satisfied to leave the control of broadcasting to a private company?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I have no specific information as to the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, the British Broadcasting Company do not manufacture or sell wireless apparatus, and I see no reason why increased sales by other firms should affect the arrange-
ment under which the Broadcasting Company is licensed to undertake broadcasting in this country.

Mr. BAKER: Are not the profits of the Broadcasting Company very greatly in excess of what was anticipated when the company was formed?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not owing to the fact that this matter has been left to private enterprise that the profits have been so great; and, so far as Government wireless is concerned, has it not always resulted in a loss?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to maintain the embargo on the importation of foreign sets?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not think the last question arises. With reference to profits, under the terms of the licence issued to the Broadcasting Company they cannot distribute more than 7½ per cent. to their shareholders. Any additional profits must be used in developing the service.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH FACILITIES, RUGBY.

Mr. E. BROWN: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General if he has received any further representations with regard to postal and telegraph facilities in Rugby?

Mr. HARTSHORN: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMEROONS (EX-ENEMY PROPERTIES).

Sir GERVASE BECKETT: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an advertisement appearing in the "Times" newspaper on 29th April last stating that, by direction of His Majesty's Government, ex-enemy properties in the British sphere of the Cameroons, West Africa, are to be sold without reservation; whether he is aware that these properties would during the War have become derelict and valueless but for the care and foresight of certain British officers acting with the view that the properties eventually would come under British ownership; and whether purchasers of ex-enemy nationality are now to be allowed to recover their ownership without exception?

Mr. THOMAS: The advertisement in question was issued by my direction. These properties were maintained during and after the War, first under the orders of the General Officer Commanding the Cameroons Expeditionary Force, and then by direction of the Administration of the British Sphere of the Cameroons. In accordance with the general arrangement respecting ex-enemy property, they will be sold by auction and the proceeds used to pay claims of British nationals against Germans. Ex-enemy subjects will be allowed to bid at the auction on the same terms as anyone else, and, if they purchase and pay for any of the properties, will be allowed to take possession of them. These properties were put up to auction in 1922, ex-enemy nationals being prevented by the conditions of sale from becoming purchasers, but hardly any of the properties were sold.

Sir G. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why there has been a change of policy in this matter?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir; it is because we are anxious that the British nationals shall get something. They did not get anything by the old policy, and we hope to get something from this.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICAN COLONIES (COMMISSION).

Sir W. de FRECE: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make any announcement as to the personnel of the Commission which is to investigate the potentialities of unified administration in the various East African Colonies?

Mr. THOMAS: I am now going fully into this matter, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Sir W. de FRECE: Is it possible to give us the name of the Chairman of the Commission, or is he not yet appointed?

Mr. THOMAS: The Chairman has not yet been appointed.

Mr. LUMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes that this Commission will go out?

Mr. THOMAS: During the Recess, I hope.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 66.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in connection with the Government's new housing proposals, he will be prepared to give effect to the views of the Scottish local authorities as to the type of house best suited to Scottish needs and the cost of house-building in Scotland, and to secure more adequate financial provision for the carrying out of future housing schemes in Scotland?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): The views of Scottish local authorities upon the points raised have been stated at the joint meetings which have recently taken place between representatives of the Government and representatives of Scottish and English local authorities, and are being carefully considered.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when we are likely to hear something of these new housing proposals, and what they are?

Mr. MILLAR: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representations from the local authorities in Scotland as to the financial and other provisions required to meet the present housing needs of Scotland; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to his housing proposals for Scotland?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have been asked to reply. The views of Scottish local authorities in regard to housing matters have been laid before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health at recent conferences. Satisfactory progress was made towards a settlement, but matters are not sufficiently advanced to enable a statement to be made.

Mr. MILLAR: When will the statement be made in this House?

FISHERMEN'S GEAR (STORAGE).

Mr. MILLAR: 67.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the need for providing garret accommodation for the storage of nets and other fishing gear in houses erected by fishermen in Scotland; and whether he will be prepared to consider
the amendment of the present limitations as to superficial area in order to meet the needs of the fishing communities in Scotland?

Mr. ADAMSON: My attention has been drawn to this matter, but it is not proposed to make any alterations in the existing Regulations.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep this point in view when the housing proposals are before the House of Commons?

Mr. ADAMSON: I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PRE-WAR DEPENDENCY PENSIONS.

Mr. EGAN: 68.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will circulate statistics, showing the effects of the arrangements which he has made for the consideration of appeals by recipients of pre-War dependency pensions, whose pensions had been reduced as the result of the general review?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Mr. J. W. Muir): Complete figures are not yet available. I am glad, however, to be able to inform my hon. Friend that, out of the cases so far investigated in which reasons have been shown by the pensioner against either a proposed or an actual reduction of pre-War dependence pension, in 1,300 cases either the reduction has been modified or the full pension claimed has been allowed.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. E. BROWN: 69.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the fact that many ex-service men who no longer enjoy any pension are in receipt of treatment and receive treatment allowances on account of the fact that their illness is consequent on service; and whether he is prepared to allow such men to reopen their claim to pension, the receipt of which, in many cases, would tend to prevent the recurrence of the illness which entitles them to treatment and treatment allowances?

Mr. MUIR: I am glad to say that comparatively few of the men who have
received final awards of the class referred to are, according to my information, in receipt of medical treatment. The need for treatment in consequence of temporary fluctuation of condition does not necessarily indicate that the final award made was erroneous, though where it is demonstrated, as a result of treatment, that serious error has occurred, the case will be put right in accordance with the procedure indicated in the answer which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on the 8th instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — McKENNA DUTIES.

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.

Sir H. CROFT: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of persons employed in the manufacture of pianos in 1913, 1921 and 1922, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. The number of insured contributors under the Unemployment Insurance Acts recorded as engaged in the manufacture of musical instruments generally in Great Britain was approximately 20,240 at July, 1922, and 18,720 at July, 1921. No separate figures have been obtained relating to piano manufacture, as distinct from the manufacture of other musical instruments. The number given includes unemployed insured workpeople, but excludes certain classes of persons who are not insurable, for example, juveniles under 16 years of ago and non-manual workers whose rate of remuneration exceeds £250 per annum. No comparable totals are available for earlier years, but in 1911 the total number of persons (including employers and salaried officials, as well as manual workers) engaged in the piano and organ industries in England and Wales, as shown by the Census of Population of that year, was 16,628, and in 1921 the corresponding total was 16,491.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Is the hon. Member aware that the price of an English piano, which was £26 in 1913, is now £62?

Sir H. CROFT: Is there no definite information as to the number of pianos imported into this country in 1913?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is there any reason to suppose there is any large unemployment in the piano-making industry?

Miss BONDFIELD: There is no reason to suppose so

Sir H. CROFT: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of pianos imported from Germany in 1913, 1921 and 1922, respectively?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. The number of pianos imported into the United Kingdom, and consigned from Germany in the years in question was:


Year.




Number.


1913
…
…
…
…
22,573


1921
…
…
…
…
8,023


1922
…
…
…
…
15,012

Sir H. CROFT: In spite of the answer to the previous question, is it not the actual fact that at least 10,000 more hands are being employed in the manufacture of pianos?

Sir H. CROFT: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of musical instruments imported in 1913, 1921 and 1922, respectively?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. The total value of musical instruments and parts thereof imported into the United Kingdom in the years in question was:


Year.



£


1913
…
…
…
1,178,806


1921
…
…
…
801,622


1922
…
…
…
1,059,591

Captain BRASS: Is consideration taken of the difference in the value of the £.

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not say, but I should think this is nominal value.

Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: Are the motors of gramophones included as parts of musical instruments?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not say offhand.

LIGHT MOTOR-CARS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons were employed in the manufacture of light motor-cars and allied trades in 1913, 1921, 1922, and 1923, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have been asked to reply. The only available statistics relate to the motor trade as a whole, and these were given in the reply of 7th May to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich. There are no separate statistics for the light motor branch of the trade.

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Member aware that the information given me on 7th May did not answer the question at all? It went into all sorts and conditions of manufacture, including pedal cycles, and only left out baby carriages and perambulators?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the President of the Board of Trade, whom I see in his place, tell us, in view of the statement in the Press this morning, whether he still considers it is not the business of the Board of Trade to have regard to the state of employment in any particular manufacture?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot deal with that now.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE (EVICTION PROCEEDINGS).

Sir K. WOOD: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he caused proceedings for eviction to be taken against Mr. Charles Oldham at the Brentford County Court this week; and what was the result of his application?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Attlee): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, the action failed on a technical point. The question of taking fresh proceedings is under consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: Did it not transpire in the proceedings before the Court that the Secretary of State asked the County Court Judge not to have any regard to the question whether alternative accommodation was available or not?

Major ATTLEE: I have no information on these details.

Mr. MILLS: Will my hon. Friend give a lead to private landlords and not claim houses unless they also can give alternative accommodation?

Mr. MASTERMAN: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention been called
to the statement of the Attorney-General in Committee, that the Crown would exercise no privilege which was not given to private landlords, and will he see that these outrages are not attempted by Ministers of the Crown?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman ought not to introduce the word "outrages."

Mr. MASTERMAN: May I—

Mr. SPEAKER: No.

Mr. MASTERMAN: May I be permitted—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has put himself out of court.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONERS.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any retiring age for coroners; and, if not, how many coroners there are over the age of 75?

Mr. DAVIES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no information as to the age of coroners now holding office.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in connection with one of the recent murders, the proceedings were reported on by a coroner over 90 years of age, and does he consider that that is a proper state of affairs?

Mr. DAVIES: That information was not available to me. The Home Office has no jurisdiction on the question of the age of the coroner.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: 81.
asked the Home Secretary whether any aliens who were refused admittance to this country last year have been admitted this year; and, if so, how many?

Mr. DAVIES: A few aliens may have been admitted this year who were refused last year on grounds which are no longer valid, but I have no specific case in mind.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Can the hon. Member give us the number of aliens who come within that category?

Mr. DAVIES: The figures are not kept on that basis; they are made out quarterly.

Sir C. YATE: Can the hon. Member say what grounds are valid and what are not valid?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, HAYES.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 82.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has given instructions for a large number of police to be sent into Hayes immediately blacklegs arrive, where a dispute is taking place between the employers and workmen; and whether, in view of the peaceful conduct of the men on strike, he will cancel the instructions so as to avoid any disturbance of the peace?

Mr. DAVIES: Arrangements have been made for two constables to patrol in the vicinity, but apart from this no special instructions have been given.

Mr. BLACK: Is it in order to allude to men who are seeking work, as "blacklegs"?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: These men were not seeking work; they were blacklegs.

Mr. SPEAKER: There are some terms which come into common use.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXHUMATION, EASTBOURNE (PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS).

Major KINDERSLEY: 83.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been railed to certain photographs of digging operations and other investigations by the police in connection with an alleged murder near Eastbourne which have appeared in the Press, and under whose authority such photographs were taken and published?

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE, 1923–24 AND 1924–25.


Head of Duty.
Approximate Receipts, 1923–24.
Estimate 1924–25 on pre-Budget basis.
Budget Estimate for 1924–25.



£1,000
£1,000
£1,000


Spirits, Imported
C
8,885
8,500
8,500


Spirits, Home-made
E
45,121
44,500
44,500


Total Spirits

54,006
53,000
53,000


Beer, Imported
C
5,591
5,700
5,700


Beer, Home-made
E
76,112
75,300
75,300


Total Beer
81,703
81,000
81,000

Mr. DAVIES: No authority is required by the Press for taking and publishing photographs of current events.

Major KINDERSLEY: Does the hon. Member think that it is in the public interest that where the police have control of premises, as they presumably have, that they should allow the Press to come in and take these ghoulish pictures and publish them in the newspapers; and will he take steps to see that where the police have control this is not done?

Mr. DAVIES: I will convey that question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Member aware that there have been unseemly scenes at the place of this exhumation by the gathering of large crowds?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the details, under the various heads, of the receipts from Customs and Excise duties for the year ended 31st March, 1924; and if he can give similar details of the estimated receipts from these duties for the year ending 31st March, 1925, both on the basis of the rates of duty in force before the Budget and on that of the rates proposed in the Budget statement?

Mr. GRAHAM: As the answer is in the form of a statistical table, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The particulars are as follow:

Head of Duty.
Approximate Receipts, 1923–24.
Estimate 1924–25 on pre-Budget basis.
Budget Estimate for 1924–25.



£1,000
£1,000
£1,000


Wine
C
3,369
3,450
3,450


Table Waters, Imported
C
26
30
30


Table Waters, Home-made
E
713
680
480


Total Table Waters

739
710
510


Tea
C
10,731
11,000
6,000


Cocoa
C
1,258
1,250
670


Coffee
C
401
420
240


Chicory
C
88
90
50


Total Cocoa, etc.

1,747
1,760
960


Sugar, Molasses, etc.
C
37,127
37,500
20,300


Sugar, Molasses, etc.
E
988
1,000
500


Total Sugar, etc.

38,115
38,500
20,800


Dried Fruits
C
928
950
750


Tobacco, Imported
C
51,881
53,990
53,990


Tobacco, Home-grown
E
7
10
10


Total Tobacco

51,888
54,000
54,000


Matches, Imported
C
1,336
1,400
1,400


Matches, Home-made
E
1,786
1,800
1,800


Total Matches

3,122
3,200
3,200


Cinematograph Films
C
289
310
40


Clocks and Watches
C
542
570
60


Motor Cars, Cycles, etc.
C
1,436
1,500
100


Musical Instruments
C
323
370
50


Total "New Import Duties"
C
2,590
2,750
250


Entertainments
E
9,270
9,500
6,100


Liquor Licences
E
4,248
4,300
4,300


Liquor Licences (Monopoly value)
E
62
60
60


Other Licences
E
464
460
460


Total Licences
E
4,774
4,820
4,820


Railway Duty
E
449
450
450


Medicines, etc.
E
1,359
1,250
1,250


Key Industry Duty
C
383
400
400


Depreciated Currency Duty
C
248
50
50


Other Articles
C
-4,884
20
20


Other Deposits*
E
7,391
690
690


Total Revenue
C
119,958
127,500
101,800


Total Revenue
E
147,970
140,000
135,900


Total

267,928
267,500
237,700


* Including adjustments to make net receipts add up to the total payments into the Exchequer. Also includes adjustments with Irish Free State in respect of revenue collected in 1922–23.

NEW IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. REMER: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has
been called to the circular issued to their shareholders by the Calthorpe Investments, Limited, advising them, in view
of the repeal of the McKenna Duties, to pass a resolution to wind-up the company; if he is aware that this company controls two important manufacturing concerns, Messrs. Calthorpe Motors, Limited, and Messrs. Mulliners, Limited, in Birmingham; and if, in view of this evidence of the unemployment caused by his proposals, he will consent to have a scientific inquiry into the whole subject before the duties are repealed?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect that the Calthorpe Motor Company has decided to recommend to the shareholders the winding-up of the company. I have also seen a statement in the Press by Mr. Hill, Chairman of the Calthorpe Motor Comany, attributing the position of certain motor manufacturing concerns to the results of an artificial boom and to the exaggeration of the present agitation which, to quote his words, had developed into a political stunt.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Member aware that in the circular issued to shareholders it is specifically stated that the unemployment that will be caused through this company going into liquidation is due to the withdrawal of the McKenna Duties?

Sir H. CROFT: Can the hon. Member explain the great glee of the hon. Members on the benches behind him?

Viscount CURZON: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before deciding to abolish the McKenna Duties, any steps were taken to ascertain the effect of such action upon the men employed in the industries affected; and whether any estimate has been formed of the number of men and their dependants who are dependent upon the industries affected for their existence?

Mr. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is that this and all other relevant considerations were duly weighed. There are no available statistics relating precisely to the branches of trade affected directly or indirectly by the duties, but it has been estimated that the number of workpeople engaged in these branches would not exceed 200,000, and may be considerably less. As to dependants, such information as is available suggests that there are on the aver-
age three dependants to each two persons employed.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Are not 200,000 British workmen worth safeguarding?

Mr. MILLS: Will the hon. Member tell us the opinion of these motor car manufacturers on the question of a duty on the raw materials of manufacture?

Sir H. CROFT: May the House take it that, at any rate, not more than one million souls are likely to be affected?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).

Viscount CURZON: 23.
asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference and the exact composition of the Committee to inquire into the withheld retired pay of naval officers can yet be given?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): I have been asked to reply. The terms of reference are as follows: To consider, with special reference to the cases of warrant officers and commissioned officers promoted from warrant officer, the Regulations governing the emoluments of retired naval and marine officers called up, retained, or volunteering for service during the period of a war, and to advise whether the Regulation suspending retired pay or pension is or is not a reasonable one in all the circumstances.
The Committee consists of the following gentlemen:

Mr. Holman Gregory, K.C. (Chairman),
Sir Cyril Jackson, K.B.E.,
Sir Leo Chiozza Money,
Mr. A. Emil Davies, and
Lieutenant W. A. Rhind, M.B.E., R.N.

Colonel ASHLEY: Am I to understand that the terms of reference do not cover all officers? Will they include officers who have not risen from the lower deck?

Mr. HODGES: They will include all the officers about whom the question was originally raised.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Was the last-named gentleman one of the officers involved?

Mr. HODGES: Not to my knowledge.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (DISTURBANCE, KIRKUK).

Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State, for the Colonies whether he can give the House any further information regarding the serious disturbances said to have taken place in Northern Iraq, and whether, as a result of action taken by the authorities, order has now been restored?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not much to add to the statement that has already been published. I am satisfied that the local authorities handled the situation with great promptitude, and that all possible steps were taken to restore order. A detachment of two platoons of British infantry was sent by air to Kirkuk immediately news of the disturbance was received. The High Commissioner himself visited the town on the following morning, and issued a proclamation promising speedy inquiry into the whole affair. The effect of this proclamation is reported to have been very good. Preliminary inquiries actually started on the 7th May. I await a report as to their results, but in the meantime I think I can assure the House that the situation is well in hand.

Mr. MILNE: The House is grateful lo the right hon. Gentleman. Can he tell me whether the original trouble was confined to the populace and the Iraqian native levies, or whether any British levies were involved?

Mr. THOMAS: It was limited to the two.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF FACTORY INSPECTOR (REPORT).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether in view of the fact that the Report of the Chief Factory Inspector has not yet been presented to the House, he will arrange for the Home Office Vote to be taken at a later date?

Mr. CLYNES: As the Noble Lord is aware, subjects for discussion on Supply Days are matters of arrangement through the usual channels, and are arranged to meet the desire of the Opposition parties.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that it is an obvious absurdity to arrange
through the usual channels to discuss the Home Office Vote before the publication of the Factory Inspector's Report?

Mr. CLYNES: The Report referred to is a very voluminous document, and I am told that it will take some time before it is issued. The Opposition parties in the House have heard the statement of the Noble Lord and may consider it.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (RESOLUTIONS).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask your ruling, Sir, in reference to what may or may not be raised in Committee of Supply? On the 7th May the Prime Minister, in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), said that he would welcome a Resolution passed in this House similar to that which was passed by the American Senate with regard to the further limitation of naval armaments, and he used these words:
I should be very glad to do so"—
that is to give an opportunity of passing a Resolution—
and perhaps an opportunity will be found in the course of the Estimates or something which will, at any rate, amount to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1924; col. 427, Vol. 173.]
On last Thursday, in Committee, I raised this matter, and the Chairman said that the Naval Votes were being discussed and the first question which was to be put dealt with personnel. Then the Lord Privy Seal said that, although the word "Estimates" had been used, he considered that the Foreign Office Vote was more suitable. I would like to ask if it is in these days considered constitutional to pass a Resolution in Committee of Supply, or whether it is in accordance with the modern practice of the House to move a Resolution in Committee of Supply?

Mr. SPEAKER: That raises a question for the Chairman of the Committee, but I think it may be stated that the practice of moving Resolutions in Committee of Supply has long since fallen into abeyance. It is a very long period since there has been any procedure of that kind, but it is not for me to interpret either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clauses "Provisions as to local authorities' accounts" and "Provisions as to withholding payment of rate in certain cases," which stand in the name of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), are out of order.

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of duration of 13 and 14 George 5, Chapter 6.)

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "twenty-six," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
The object of this Amendment is to extend the provisions of this Bill for one year only instead of two. I have no objection to the particular proposals contained in the Bill itself. Many authorities, especially in London, are receiving some assistance as a result of the provisions of this Measure which, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will remember, was introduced as the result of a conference at the Ministry of Health some time ago. I believe that, on the suggestion of the representative of the city of Westminster, supported by others, the compromise contained in this Bill was generally agreed to. If I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman and his friends voted for the Bill on that occasion. But it has all along been considered that the provisions of this Bill were of a temporary character, and I believe that in the time of the previous Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) a circular was sent to the local authorities, before this Bill was introduced, asking them to make their comments on the Bill, and that one of the points which a large number of authorities brought forward was that the Bill should be extended for one year only instead of two.
The main objection which these local authorities took was not, as I believe,
that they wanted to avoid the financial contribution which they were making, but that they believed that if this Act were again extended for two years it would mean a further postponement of a measure of Poor Law reform. Most Members of all parties agree that a measure of Poor Law reform is long overdue. I was very much disappointed to find that the Ministry of Health is suggesting what in effect amounts to this subject being again postponed for a further period of two years. That means that little or nothing is going to be done by the present Government in relation to what I think is a very urgent matter. I do not know whether the Government contemplate any further inquiry, but most hon. Members who have shown some interest in this subject know that it has already been the subject of very exhaustive inquiries. The last inquiry held on this matter was held under the Chairmanship of an old Member of this House, and a man of great experience, Sir Donald Maclean, and while there may be objections to any proposal made in connection with Poor Law reform, I think that a great many of the recommendations in that Report receive a good deal of assent.
4.0 P.M.
Therefore, I would ask the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Health why he wants the Act to be extended for two years and why he cannot be content with the period of one year. I believe that if the House postponed this matter for two years, it means shelving for a much longer period the question of Poor Law reform, especially in London. Another reason why I object to the period of two years is not only does it mean postponement of this particular reform, but I think that there is a great deal to be said for the point which has been raised again and again on this matter by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) as to the industrial areas in the provinces in reference to poor relief and matters of that kind which he has pointed out is a very urgent one. He and many other Members have again and again pressed the Minister of Health to declare his intentions in that connection, and I believe that if you pass this Bill with a period of two years we shall again postpone any solution of this matter. The Minister of Health will go away and say, "Well, that Bill is through; every-
thing is all right for two years, and I need not trouble any more about it." If he knew that this Bill had to come up again in a year's time, it would perhaps make him more vigilant in his stewardship and get along a little quicker with these very necessary and urgent matters. The third reason why I urge that this Bill should be limited to one year is, as many hon. Members may recollect, that on the Second Reading many of us raised the question of the way that local authorities were administering Poor Law relief, and, particularly, matters arising out of this Measure. There was the notorious case of the Borough of Poplar, and the Minister of Health on the Second Reading of the Bill invited suggestions as to how matters could be improved. I must not, as the Amendment has been ruled out of order, refer to the specific proposal that I have ventured to put on the Notice Paper, but I do say that one of the reasons why this Bill should be limited to one year is that apparently the Minister of Health is going to do nothing in this particular matter. As I understand it, the Poplar Borough Council are continuing the same practices.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. The hon. Member will, I am sure, allow me to tell him that this matter has nothing whatever to do with the borough council.

Mr. SPEAKER: And the hon. Member must please not attempt on this Amendment to deal with the one that I have ruled out of order. This is a Bill merely continuing the Act for a period, and the only question is whether the period should terminate in 1925 or 1926.

Sir K. WOOD: I need hardly say that I shall not for a moment venture to refer to those Amendments which have been ruled out of order, but I want to urge that, unless the House takes the course of substituting the year 1925 for 1926, certain practices, not by the borough council, but by the Poor Law guardians of Poplar, may well continue into the year 1926, and need not be dealt with, as I hope they will be dealt with, in the year between 1925 and 1926. It seems to me that that is, at any rate, a valid reason for urging upon the House the curtailment of the period in this Bill, because undoubtedly
nothing has been done, and no alteration whatever has been made in the practices of a good many boards of guardians, including the one to which I have referred; and I fear that if the year 1926 is retained nothing at all will be done in that important connection. I want to urge another reason why this period should be curtailed. Under the provisions of this Bill and the principal Act which it seeks to amend and continue, there is, of course, the very important question of the relationship of the Minister to various surcharges which are from time to time being made. I want some legislation brought in to deal with that matter, and I fear that if the year 1926 is retained in the Bill nothing will be done in that connection, and the present system will be continued. I have, however, no wish to deal further with that subject.
My main contention is that by continuing this Bill for a period of two years little or nothing will be done in the important question of Poor Law reform. I venture to say that little harm can be done in making this Bill operate for one year, because, if it be found impossible to bring forward a Bill reforming the Poor Law within that time, this Bill can be continued for another year, as, in fact, it was done on the last occasion by Sir Alfred Mond, who was then Minister of Health, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Neville Chamberlain). I venture to say that is a reasonable course to ask the Government to adopt on this occasion. If they find that they cannot bring in their proposals—I should have thought that they would have had them ready by now, having regard to all the statements and literature that I have read—they can bring in another Bill continuing the Act for another year. I do object to this long time being taken, and I hope that a good many Members will agree that the course which I suggest is, at any rate, a wise course. It will not do any harm, and it may accelerate the Government in the good work which we expect them to do.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I would draw the
attention of the, House to the fact that this matter was raised in Committee and was negatived.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to make too much of that point, because, as he knows, many of us were sitting on another important Committee whiih demanded our constant attention, and were therefore not present on that occasion.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was going to point out that it was with the approval of my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and I hope that the hon. Member, having made his protest, will withdraw his Amendment, because, I think, there is a case to be made out for the Bill operating for two years. It is true that the Act now coming to an end has operated only for one year, but it is perfectly clear from our experience that a year from now, or really next April, a further extension of this Bill will be necessary, and it was primarily with a view to saving Parliamentary time that we suggested that this Bill should operate for two years rather than for one year. The hon. Member suggests that this may be a way of postponing Poor Law reform and certain legislation of a different kind in which he is interested. I see no reason why that should be so. It is obvious that the question of Poor Law reform in London is a very large and complex question in which a number of divergent interests are concerned, and the actual bringing into operation—I do not say the passing into law—of any scheme of Poor Law reform can hardly be expected in 11 months from now. Consequently, if we are to continue this system of assistance to Metropolitan authorities some Measure will be needed in any event. I hope it may be that I am wrong, but we are legislating against the contingency of not being able to bring that scheme into operation by the beginning of April next year. The other argument of the hon. Member seemed to me hardly relevant to the Bill. The question of the local authorities outside the London area is not dealt with in this Bill, and I feel sure that that matter may well be left to my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson).

Sir K. WOOD: He is not here.

Mr. GREENWOOD: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, on all possible occasions, bring the grievances of those authorities before the House. After all, this is a non-party and non-controversial Bill. As I pointed out on the Second Reading, it was introduced by the Coalition Government, re-introduced last year by the Conservative Government, and it is introduced again this year by the present Government as being necessary. In view of its non-controversial character and in view of the continuance of this period of real difficulty for Metropolitan Poor Law authorities, it is advisable, I think, to save Parliamentary time by extending the Measure for two years instead of for one year, and I hope that the House will agree to that course.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I rise because the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to my action in supporting this Bill, for which, in a sense, the late Government was as much responsible as is the present Government. When I did that, it was my view, and I think it is still my view, that on the whole two years is the period for which the present Act ought to be extended, but I acted on the Second Reading and in Committee without a knowledge of what has happened since the late Government left office, information which, I think, the House might have expected the Government to have laid before us. When the late Government was in office, they circularised, I think on 17th December last, the local authorities in London, and asked their opinion on an extension of the Act. At the time that the late Government left office, I think I am right in saying that all the views that they had received from the local authorities agreed that an extension of the Act was necessary and saw no great objection in any case to an extension of two years, but afterwards, on 6th February, the representatives of the contributing boards of guardians held a meeting and passed a series of six resolutions. They subsequently asked the Minister of Health to receive a deputation, but while he did so, on 25th February, no mark is left upon the Bill of the views that the deputation urged and, what is more remarkable, I do not think that any mark of them is being left on our Debates in this House.
The Government, not, of course, intentionally, have omitted to inform the
House of the position of certain local authorities in regard to this Bill. That is a very serious thing. When we deal with a Bill of this kind, we ought to be in possession of full knowledge as to how far the local authorities immediately concerned agree and how far they do not agree. I confess that I have acted in this matter under the completely erroneous impression that all the local authorities chiefly concerned had agreed or, at any rate, saw no great objection to the extension of this Act for two years. That, apparently, is not so, and therefore we are faced with a rather new situation.
Frankly, I do not know what I should have done, or what my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) would have done, if we had been faced by these representations of the boards of guardians. I think it is possible that we also would have decided, not, indeed, to disregard that information, but to reserve our view as to what extension was necessary. But not having heard the views pf the deputation I will not say. The representations were of a serious character. I understand that the boards of guardians pointed out that 9d. per day was the full average cost of relief per head over London. They took the line that if the Bill was to be extended for two years the Minister should, at any rate, have regard to the question whether it was advisable to fix for a period as long as two years a contribution equal to the full average cost over London. They were of opinion, therefore, that a safer contribution would be a contribution of 7d. I do not think that at the present time it would be desirable to cut the contribution down from 9d. to 7d., but I would be very sorry to say that that would not be necessary next year.
It must be remembered that this average contribution of 9d. is not an average that is made up because, on one side, you have boroughs like Kensington, with a very low cost of poor relief per head—say 6½d.—and Poplar, on the other side, with the very high cost of poor relief of over 1s. per head. Even Westminster, as a matter of fact, has an expenditure per head which is rather higher than the average for London. It is, therefore, very important that, if we are to extend this Act for two years, we should be sure that next year we shall
not be sanctioning a contribution considerably higher than the receiving unions ought to receive or than the contributing unions ought to be asked to pay. I, therefore, enter a protest against the fact that the Government have not told the House what opposition their proposal has received from the interested authorities, and I protest also against the Government taking their Bill quite so much as a matter of course, though I admit that the action which I took in Committee may have encouraged them to adopt what is a very deplorable course of action.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: The Noble Lord was a little unconvincing in his intervention, especially considering that he was a Member of the last Government, though not a Member at the time in question, and that that Government was also guilty of asking for this Act to be renewed. I see that the Noble Lord has alongside him two very distinguished representatives of the former Ministry of Health. They, too, are equally guilty, because they had 12 months to go into the whole problem of the Poor Law, and if they had appointed an efficient Committee or Commission to go into the matter thoroughly, by this time the present Government would have been in a position to introduce legislation for dealing with the whole Poor Law problem. I have for many years preached that the Poor Law throughout the country is bad and that it is particularly bad in London. The whole system is an anomaly and it cannot last much longer without grave injustice. Every attempt to bolster it up by palliatives, by equalisation schemes, by any re-arrangement, only makes reform more necessary. I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, because it is a good thing to be able to bring the Government before the high court of Parliament at least once a year and to press them to put through this needed reform. Every succeeding Government seems to fight shy of this particular problem. This is the fourth Government to whom that remark applies. We have all the facts and all the information, and every year that passes the problem becomes more pressing. Every piece of social legislation that we introduce makes the muddle more involved. After all, our machinery for dealing with poverty is worked through the insurance scheme and the Employment Exchanges. You have two
parallel systems working alongside and tremendous friction and waste are the result. I am very sorry to see that when this burning question is before the House it is necessary to have the Secretary for Scotland to deal with it. I am not sure that we shall not get more sympathy from him than from the Ministry of Health.
I would not be inclined to support my hon. Friends opposite if I got an assurance that the Government meant business, that they have some real machinery in hand and can promise us the reform that is needed. The Poor Law is expensive, inefficient and cumbersome, and, above all, it is hated by all the people who are recipients of the money that is expended. Yet, somehow or other, each Government takes the line of least resistance and adopts temporary expedients. Temporary legislation is the very worst form of legislation, because local authorities do not know where they are, and you create vested interests which are concerned to keep the temporary laws in force. I press the Government, therefore, to give us a real guarantee, and I will back my opinion by my vote if I do not get a satisfactory assurance that in the next 12 months they intend to have some scheme prepared which will deal not only with the London problem—the question cannot be dealt with piecemeal—but the whole Poor Law problem. They have the knowledge, if only they have the knowledge to grasp the nettle. Let the Government tell us what their scheme is. If they have a Royal Commission in view let them tell us what the Royal Commission is to be and who its members are to be. If the Government have a Select Committee in view let them say what form of Select Committee it is to be. If they have their Bill ready that will be best of all. Let them tell us when they will introduce it.

Miss LAWRENCE: I think it is a thoroughly satisfactory condition of affairs that all Members who have spoken are in substantial agreement. I fully agree with nearly everything that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has said. I agree almost completely with the remarks of the other speakers. At the beginning this business was a piece of makeshift legislation. The contributing boroughs showed a great deal of public spirit in 1921, when the affairs of London were in a state of
the utmost complexity, by agreeing to come to the assistance of the necessitous districts. That is perfectly true. It is also true that the contributing boroughs have a very considerable grievance. It is an odious thing and contrary to all the canons of democracy to have to pay for things over which you have no control. In that unfortunate position all the contributing boroughs are now. They agreed to it, and we agreed to it, on the understanding that it was to be for a year, and for a year only. I do not suppose that they would have agreed for a moment if they could have looked into the future and could have seen that year after year the arrangement would be renewed. Those who are concerned with London government know that we were not behindhand in the matter. We did attack, with them, successive Ministers of Health. We did say to them that this was a makeshift piece of legislation and must be ended. We did not get even a promise.
Now we have a promise from the Government, and I think it is impossible to do anything at this minute. Much as I dislike the Bill and heartily as I agree as to the want of reform of Poor Law administration, it is impossible to get at this moment anything but a promise and a renewal of the Act. What else is there to be got? You cannot get the larger Bill; you cannot get a Poor Law Reform Bill through in five minutes or in five weeks. You cannot reform the Poor Law without a great deal of Parliamentary time. If any of the hon. Members who have spoken was in charge, he would not produce such a Bill in an ordinary Session. Any such Bill must deal with the area question as well as the Poor Law question. There is only one course which is reasonable, namely, to get a repetition of the promise already given by the Government that they will deal with the Poor Law, and at the moment we must pass this unsatisfactory makeshift Measure once more, in order to prevent financial confusion. I like the Bill no more than any other Member who has spoken. It was Sir Alfred Mond's makeshift scheme. It was necessary to have a makeshift scheme at that time, but it never was and never could be a permanent piece of legislation. We have unitedly expressed our protest—I am glad to see that London Members are
doing that—but, that having been done, I can see no practical step for the moment except to get this Bill through and to ask the Minister to repeat the assurance given us that the Poor Law as a whole shall be reformed.

Mr. KEENS: I trust that the House will not allow this Measure to be passed in its present form. Apart from the general question of Poor Law relief, there is another question raised, and that is that this Bill stabilises for a period the grants from the ratepayers of London generally to the necessitous areas The principle of equalisation, or a step towards it, is undoubtedly a fine thing, and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to vote against such a Measure. But on 26th February last the Prime Minister said:
I would ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) if he would not help us in trying to devise that collateral security. I should be very glad if it were possible to get collateral security that would work equitably and fairly, and would be in accordance with democratic government—collateral security which, in addition to the surcharge, would protect the ratepaver."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1924, col. 396; Vol. 170.]
I submit that in this Bill we are prevented from introducing the collateral security which is admittedly desirable. By that fact, and by the bringing in of a Bill in these circumstances, we are absolutely being forced—those of us who believe that the contributing ratepayer must have more adequate protection—to ask that the Measure shall be limited to the shortest possible time. I therefore have pleasure in supporting this Amendment, to the effect that the Bill be renewed for one and not for two years.

Mr. GREENWOOD: In view of what has been said by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), perhaps I may just refer to what I actually said on the Second Reading. I think the Noble Lord must have forgotten. I should be sorry if he thought for a moment that I had withheld from the House any facts relevant to this discussion, but I explained quite fully to the House that this limitation had been agreed upon by the authorities, and I gave the precise figures for the two years, showing that the cost of outdoor relief had remained practically constant, and
that, therefore, there were no really strong grounds for believing that 9d. would prove to be an excessive sum in the second year during which the Bill operated. I hope, therefore, that the Noble Lord will not think that I have withheld from the House any important information.
I also referred to the fact that the deputation of local authorities which raised this question did not advance any substantial reasons for any reduction of the period, and I believe it was agreed that next year, when the question would again arise, continuance would again be necessary. I understand that the main contention of all hon. Members who have spoken is that this opportunity ought to be used for extracting a renewal of an undertaking that has already been given. I assure the House that the Government have no desire whatever to hold up the question of Poor Law reform, and communications are now passing between the Whips of the three parties with the object of bringing about a conference of those parties, in order that, so far as is practicable, an agreed Measure might be reached. That, in the opinion of the Government, seems to be a speedier and, on the whole, a more desirable method than the machinery of a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee has in the past been found to be. In view of the fact that that is now in hand, I hope that hon. Members who are anxious about the reform of the Poor Law will accept this explanation, and that the House will accept our proposal that this Bill should be extended for two years.

Lord E. PERCY: With the leave of the House, I should like to say just a few words, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I apologise to him if I appeared in any way to accuse him of concealing information from the House. The Debate to which he referred had slipped from my mind, and I did not recollect it. I quite understand, and if I have done the hon. Gentleman an injustice I apologise.

Mr. LANSBURY: I only desire to say that neither a Royal Commission nor another Committee is, in the judgment of anyone acquainted with the facts, necessary. There has been a Royal Commission, and there have been two Committees, presided over in each case
by very eminent people, and their Reports are very valuable. It does seem to me that, if the Government are consulting the other parties, and if what would be more or less an agreed Bill can be arrived at, that is much the best method of going to work. I hope this Bill will be extended for two years, not because I want the Government to wait two years, but because it is certain that we shall not be able to get the Bill through this year, and because, after the discussion, which will necessarily be prolonged because of the interests outside, there will only be just sufficient time to get a Bill through before this one lapses. I hope, therefore, that we shall extend the Bill for the two years, and leave it at that, hoping that this Government will be the Government that will, for once, do what it has promised to do.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am always in favour of giving any Government as little time as possible, because, all the time that I have sat in this House, I have never found any Government that kept its word. Consequently, the more control the House of Commons keeps over the Government, the more likely are the undertakings to be carried out, and from that point of view I think there is a distinct advantage in putting in the year 1925. Next year it will not be necessary to go through all these stages; it will be quite possible to deal with the matter in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) wants to know why it is being done in this way. It is because, in the present Session, we are dealing in two separate Bills with a matter which was dealt with in a single Bill last year. An alteration is being made in one of those Bills, and the Government is not dealing with it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill because it desires that the period shall be two years and not one year. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that communications have taken place between the Whips as to some sort of inquiry into the reform of the Poor Law. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is very glad to hear that such communications have taken place, but I think the House would have been more gratified if some statement had been made as to the position of the negotiations. Apparently it is the case that a communication has been made with
regard to some form of inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman is not able to say whether the Whips of the different parties have assented, and whether it is now simply a matter of the personnel of the Committee that is to inquire and of its terms of reference. If the hon. Gentleman is able to say whether any advance has been made in regard to defining the reference or determining the personnel, I would suggest that he might make an announcement on that before we part with the Measure.

Earl WINTERTON: I should like to say a word in support of what has just been said by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). I happen to have read the Report of the original Royal Commission on the Poor Law, and it is a very remarkable and interesting document. I quite agree that it would be most inappropriate, to say the least of it, to appoint another Royal Commission, and I also agree that the announcement which has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary would have had more value had it been a little more definite. I think it is an admirable thing, and one which I have no doubt would affect the voting on this Amendment, to have what I may call pourparlers between the Whips of the different parties, with a view to arriving at an agreed Bill. But it would have helped us a little more in deciding how to vote if the hon. Gentleman had told us how far these negotiations have proceeded, what chance there is of their coming to successful fruition, and, what, is, I venture to say, most important of all, whether, if they are brought to a successful conclusion, we can have any sort of guarantee that the three parties agreeing to them will bring influence to bear upon their leaders to deal with the matter, whatever Government is in power.
That is really the whole problem, and, if there are to be negotiations of this kind, I think that a condition precedent to those negotiations should be an honourable understanding, by the parties agreeing to them, that the agreement arrived at will be carried out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not think I am treating the matter with levity if I observe that a very easy way of getting out of the difficulty would be for a Minister to say that the matter is now the subject of negotiations between the three parties,
and it is hoped that an agreement will be arrived at. While I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman should speak now, I hope that on the Third Reading he will be able to give a little more definite information. After all, this is not a party matter. All sides of the House wish to see the matter brought to an end, and I would say that—although it is, in a sense, arguing against the party to which I belong—it is an absolute scandal that so many years have passed without a real effort being made to deal with this question. We ought to have in sight some definite end to what is really a very anomalous state of affairs.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I desire to support the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I am sure hon. Members would be glad to know something more definite than we have heard on this important matter. I represent a division in London where the boards of guardians have carried on their work with exceptional success, both from the point of view of efficiency and of economy, and they certainly view with dissatisfaction the proposal that this emergency Bill should be carried on for a period, not of one year, but of two years. On the other hand, I think that they, and hon. Members of this House also, would be satisfied not to press the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), if an assurance were given on the Third Reading that the matter would be dealt with in the manner that has been suggested. If some such assurance could be given from the Government Bench, it would certainly reconcile me to a continuance of this Bill for two years instead of for one year—a continuance for two years, that is, of the contribution of the Borough of Fulham to the Common Poor Fund on the same basis as at present. The Borough of Fulham is a substantial contributing borough, and it naturally views these matters with a good deal of close interest. I, therefore, support the suggestion that has been made, pressing the hon. Member in charge of the Measure to give us some assurance which would satisfy us on that point.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) press his Amendment?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, I do not want to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the Third time."

Lord E. PERCY: I do not want to part with this Bill without carrying a little further, if I may, the discussion we have just had. This Bill is a purely emergency Bill. I recollect that, when it made its first appearance in this House, I made one of my first speeches here, imploring Sir Alfred Mond to do something with regard to the reform of the Poor Law, and I think it is most important that, whenever the Bill comes up for renewal, the same thing should be said, as it has been said this afternoon. The Parliamentary Secretary has seemed rather to think that he can dismiss the subject—I am not using the word in any offensive sense—by saying, "Oh, we are going to have a conference of the parties." Of course, that may be a very convenient method of exempting yourself from the necessity of making up your own mind. I do not think that anyone can have been in the Ministry of Health, either in a senior or in a junior capacity, during the last two or three years without giving very careful thought to this particular problem. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) criticised the late Government for not having done anything in regard to it, but his criticism was appropriately answered by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence), who pointed out that this is a question quite as much of area as of anything else.
It was only last year that we completed an inquiry—and when I say "We," I am not now speaking of the Conservative Government, for the Committee in question was appointed by the Coalition Government—into the Government of London, which led, in my view, to unfortunately negligible results. That is the kind of thing that happens if you proceed by conferences and committees, and have no real idea in your own mind of what you are going to do. I confess that, by the time I left the Ministry of Health, I had personally quite a clear idea in my own mind of what I wanted to do, and I hope that the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary are also getting to that frame of mind now. But
—and this is what I want to emphasise—if they are getting to that frame of mind, it seems to me to be most deplorable, and a most discouraging sign, that they show no signs of taking the first steps towards a reform of the Poor Law, steps which had already been marked out by the preceding Government, and in regard to which this Government have done nothing. I allude particularly to the Rating and Valuation Bill.
I must not, of course, be led into a discussion of any of these Measures, but I think it is universally admitted that for any permanent and scientific treatment of the Poor Law you must reform your whole system of local taxation. The late Government did undertake that most unpopular task, but the present Government have hitherto refused to give any indication as to whether they propose to take that Measure up in any form. In any case, it will have to be subject to modification, because the views of the local authorities have now been received upon it, but the Government have made no announcement, and when I asked a question on the subject, and when the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) some time ago asked a question on the subject, we were, as usual, asked to wait. That is not an encouraging sign. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green will, at any rate, admit that the late Government were prepared to take the first steps towards a scientific treatment of the subject, and to incur unpopularity with that object. But what are the Government prepared to do? They call a conference between all the parties, which is a comfortable way of avoiding unpopularity, but are they going to give us any guidance? I am not making any party point.

Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, no, never!

Lord E. PERCY: Nothing that I have said has been in the least in a party spirit. I will freely admit that of the Governments I have known, the present Government, the last Government, and the Coalition Government, the first two went out of office, and the present one, I fear, will also go out, after having merely considered the problem, and before taking a definite line upon it, and I am anxious that, whatever Government is in power, we should come to an end
of that state of mind. There is plenty of material at the Ministry of Health. This is a question for the administrator of the day, on the facts before him, to make up his own mind and to give the country guidance, and I want to ask the Government whether they intend to take that responsibility on their own shoulders, or to have it merged into an amorphous conference for agreement between all the parties. I am not complaining of the conference. I think it is most important that any Measure of this kind should, so far as possible, emerge as an agreed Measure from previous consultation between the parties, but those consultations will be no good unless the Government have a definite policy of their own, and unless they are prepared to take the first step—the very dull step—of the reform of local taxation and so on. What are the Government doing? What reason have we to suppose that the Government are even considering the problem with a view to giving this House and the country a real lead in the matter? I want to ask the Under-Secretary to give us some more assurances on the subject before we part with this Bill.

Mr. P. HARRIS: The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) went out of his way to say that he had no party spirit, but he rather jeered at the proposed conference between the three parties. I am not quite sure, at a time like this, when the Government have not a majority, whether, if the Government really mean business, it is not wise to consult the other two parties. It is only by co-operation that they can possibly deal with a big social problem like this. I do not agree that this Government are not in a position to produce a scheme. After all, they have, as a Member, in the President of the Board of Trade, a gentleman who probably is the greatest expert on this particular problem in the country. At any rate, he always led us to understand that, as soon as he had the opportunity, he had a scheme up his sleeve. We would like him to produce it. At any rate, if we have this conference, he may put his proposal before us, with the assistance of the Under-Secretary.
I contend that in London this problem is more acute than anywhere else, because the system of London government is so
complicated and involved that the Poor Law breaks down more obviously in London than elsewhere. In Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, you have one area and one authority treating the people to be relieved, belonging to one town, but in London you do not even follow the ordinary municipal areas. You have 28 borough councils and 31 Poor Law unions; I think two are to be amalgamated shortly, but, at any rate, you have 30 Poor Law unions. The consequence is that the machinery is far more obviously bad. At the present time the Government are bringing in several Insurance Bills to deal with unemployment. I have always contended that you cannot efficiently deal with the problem of unemployment through insurance and leave all the old antiquated machinery of the Poor Law unions in existence. There ought to be one authority, and one authority only, dealing with destitution, especially when it takes the form of unemployment, and I believe that the line of least resistance would be to utilise the machinery of the Employment Exchanges, which are supposed to have at their disposal knowledge of all the people out of work, why they are out of work, and what are the conditions of the industries within their area.
Surely, the proper line to take is to assume that your fundamental problem in Poor Law is unemployment. Such things as destitution caused by ill-health, by old age, and by the desire to evade the law can quite easily be dealt with through the existing machinery of the municipalities, which have all the organisation to deal with them. Actually many of the infirmaries are already changing their bias. Owing to the existence of the insurance benefit, it is now found to be an anomaly to treat infirmaries as Poor Law institutions, and in most parts of London now they are changing their name, and not only are being treated as, but are being called, hospitals.

Mr. SPEAKER: To embark on a discussion of future Poor Law reform would be more than is justified on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I have, said enough to indicate that my view is—and I believe that it is the view of the majority of Members of this House—that the time is now oppor-
tune to deal with the whole problem, not in a piecemeal way, but in a large, statesmanlike way, with a big scheme dealing with unemployment, insurance, and health, and making the Poor Law only one side of a very much bigger question.

Sir K. WOOD: I wish to express my disappointment at the attitude of the Government in this connection. This is only in keeping, I suppose, with what we might expect. On matters such as unemployment and housing we have had no real proposals put forward, and I dare say hon. Members will remember how, in previous Sessions, Labour Members, when they sat on this side, were full of Poor Law reform and stated that, if they could only get into office, the whole Poor Law administration of the country would be reformed, the problem would be solved, and everybody would be happy. Instead of that, we have the Bill introduced with which we are now dealing, which follows the usual procedure of the Government, namely, they are taking over a Measure from their predecessors, they are introducing a stop-gap proposal. There is in it nothing fresh. There is not a single original idea that they have put forward, and now, after a lot of pressing, the Under-Secretary for Health, at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, says that he is going to have a conference between the parties with a view to bringing about Poor Law reform. I should have thought this Government would have had proposals of their own, but to endeavour to put off, at the last moment, a reasonable proposal such as I made, which would have put some time limit in this matter, and then to tell us that negotiations are proceeding, is not very satisfactory. When were they started? Why is it that they have been mentioned only this afternoon?
This matter has been before this House itself for nearly two months, and this afternoon, when the Government get into a difficulty, they suggest that the other two parties should come to their rescue. That is not a proper position for the Government to take up. I remember that the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) spoke in a very different tone when she was sitting on this side of the House. She did not know what would happen unless the Poor Law was reformed, and talked of how all the people from Poplar and East Ham would
come up to Westminster and demand the reform of the Poor Law; yet to-day she, and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), sit quietly down while this Bill is going to continue the present state of affairs for two years. The Government will get very little glory out of their proposals this afternoon, and it is another illustration of how, when the Labour Government are brought up against practical propositions and find that speeches are of no avail, they turn round and say: "Let the other parties in the House come to our rescue, and let us have a conference and see whether any proposals can be made." It is a very good illustration of the position in which we find ourselves to-day.
I only hope that something will come out of this Conference, but I should have thought that the best thing would have been for the Government to have tabled their own proposals. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley talks about time, and how two years can roll by and everything will be all right, but why do not the Government bring forward their own proposals and let us see what they are? Instead of that, we have this makeshift suggestion this afternoon, whilst hon. Members are compelled to agree to continue the present methods in operation, because the Government are bankrupt of ideas. I wish to register my protest against the third failure of the Government, and that is, to deal with Poor Law reform.

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to put some further questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, mainly in reference to the announcement which he made in the Debate just now. I then asked what progress had been made in the negotiations. We were told that the Whips had been approached, and I understand that that is accurate. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Commander Eyres Monsell) will be able to tell us what reply he has given, and whether it is owing to the obstructive methods of the Whips that no real progress has been made. At the same time, I wish to state that, in my view, this is not the right Parliamentary way to deal with the problem. The party which the Government represent always told us that they were very fertile in ideas regarding Poor Law reform. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who was on the Front Bench a few
moments ago, and who has unfortunately left the House, has made a reputation on this subject.

Mr. E. BROWN: A joint reputation.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, as I am reminded, it is a joint reputation. But I think the right hon. Gentleman has co-operated in the production of more Blue Books on the reform of the Poor Law than any other individual in this country.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Hear, hear!

Mr. PRINGLE: I always assumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) had read them all. Not only was the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of his party concerned in the production of Blue Books, but also in the production of Bills on the subject, and in the last Parliament, when these Bills had no chance of becoming law, they were printed at the public expense. It seems very strange that now, when all these Bills are ready, and when it is not merely a matter of having them printed at the public expense and doing a little propaganda, but when there is a real chance of taking a step forward, we should never hear anything further of them. They have been withdrawn into the background. I observe that one of the ablest members of the party, a gentleman who has been one of their instructors and one of their intellectuals—Mr. Cole—is expressing some disappointment at the sterility of the Government. He says that the Fabian Society has become a wraith of the past and is fading way; that the President of the Board of Trade no longer counts and that the Independent Labour Party is defunct. I suggest that the right course would be for these bodies to look over the Bills which they have drafted in the past and that the Government should produce such a Bill and present it for Second Reading. It may be that a Bill of that character would not go to an ordinary Committee and the proper way to have an inquiry would be to refer such a bill to a Select Committee of this House. By referring it to a Select Committee a Report could be obtained which would be the basis of legislation next Session. That would be a far better method than referring the question to a hole and
corner committee of three persons nominated by the Whips of each party, which would sit somewhere in private and arrive at a conclusion to which no special attention would be paid. We have had, as everybody knows, Royal Commissions and Committees in the past dealing with the question of Poor Law in the abstract, but they have never had specific proposals before them. When a Government has desired to obtain the general sense of the House of Commons the method adopted has been to produce a Bill, refer that Bill to a Select Committee, if the subject was non-contentious as this subject is, and then, basing themselves on the Report of that Committee, the Government would proceed with an agreed Measure in the following Session. I think that is a plan which should commend itself to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Health and, though not a responsible person, he might suggest that method of procedure to the Government as a means of showing the country that the Government have still some ideas and also some intention of inducing the other parties to co-operate with them in producing a practical plan.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the attitude which has been taken on both sides of the House towards this proposed conference—I do not think the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) is correct in calling it a committee—I suggest it may be hardly advisable to proceed with the idea. Obviously the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are not greatly in favour of it, and I think Members generally on this side would like to know a great deal more about it before officially or individually giving consent to the proposal. I therefore again suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary what I have already suggested when speaking on the Amendment, that while the House may or may not be willing to pass this Bill, the House will require from the Government, either now or in the near future, a far more definite statement of their intentions towards the whole problem of the Poor Law than the Government have given us this afternoon. When the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) referred to this matter his remarks were received with what I may describe without discourtesy
as rather jeering cheers from the Government benches, but I would remind hon. Members opposite that it is the habit of supporters of the Government to treat with jeers all references to any matter which is creating a great deal of attention outside, and the reception of such a matter in this House by supporters of the Government is very often in inverse ratio to the importance attached to it in circles outside this House. I have no desire to make party capital, but I dare to make this statement, and I do not think it will be contradicted, that there is not among the hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite above the Gangway one single individual who has not, either in the course of his election speeches or his election address or in speeches in this House, during the last two or three years, informed the country generally that the Labour party, if returned to power, would have a remedy for the existing chaos in the Poor Law. As the hon. Member for Penistone says, a gentleman who may be described as the principal accoucheur of the Socialist party, Mr. Cole, has been compelled to admit that in this matter the Government are showing extreme sterility.

Mr. PRINGLE: In everything.

Earl WINTERTON: Then he goes further than I thought. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some further information as to the policy of the Government in this matter. It is hardly conceivable, even though they may put forward and support a proposal for a conference between the parties to arrive at an agreed solution, that the Government themselves, who have been in office now for three months, have not a policy of their own towards this question. Presumably their only reason for not bringing it forward is that they prefer to arrive at a method by agreement first before putting forward their own policy. It is true this is only a Bill to extend certain temporary provisions, but as has been pointed out in this Debate these provisions have already been extended on two or three occasions, and meanwhile the chaos in local government, in relation to matters of Poor Law relief, not only in London but in the whole country, grows steadily worse. I happen to be interested in properties in London, both as a private individual and as a trustee
of one of the charities most largely concerned with the ownership of house property in the London area. Believe me, the differences of rating and the differences of the system as between the various authorities in London are so confusing, that only those who have experienced it could believe it possible at this period for such a state of affairs to exist. This chaos does not merely injure the interests of property owners, local authorities and corporations but does grave injury to the inhabitants of those boroughs and to every man, woman and child. It would be out of order to discuss this matter on the present occasion, but it seems to me that when such matters are being considered upstairs as a proposal for bettering the traffic arrangements, we should at the same time go into the whole question of local government in London. I again assure hon. Members that I make these remarks in no party spirit, but I suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us a definite assurance that there is going to be a real attempt to deal with this question, he should promise us that, on some future and, perhaps, more important occasion, either he or his chief will deal with the whole matter. I think if the Government make an attempt to deal with the whole matter, they will not find in any quarter of the House any lack of sympathy towards their intentions, because this is not a party matter, and we all wish to see the present state of things remedied. Matters cannot be allowed to remain as they are, and I join my voice with those of the hon. Members who have preceded me in emphasising the fact that the main responsibility must rest upon the Government.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would remind the House that there have been two or three agreed Reports before this House dealing with this question. This is one of those questions on which everybody says, "Oh, we are all agreed; there is no party feeling here," and yet nothing is ever done.

Sir K. WOOD: Why not?

Mr. LANSBURY: The solid reason is to be found in the vested interests in the boards of guardians outside. It is perfectly easy to talk about the Government formulating propositions. Whenever any Government does so, members of
boards of guardians outside will bombard Members of this House, and the Bill will be blocked from the very first moment. The only way in which a Bill dealing with the Poor Law, as it ought to be dealt with, can get through this House is by agreement. We have now had three different Reports; the Reports of two committees and the Report of a Royal Commission, and the best way to approach this question is that adopted by the Government, namely, to try to hammer out a scheme among ourselves, so that we may all stand up together against the interests outside. Unless we are able to do it in that way, I am of opinion that we shall not be able to do it at all, urgent as the reform is. It is nonsensical to blame the present Minister in respect of the four months during which he has been in office. Other people have been in office for years since the Poor Law Commission. I would also call attention to the fact that when the present Government came into office there was a chorus from both sides of the House: "We are entering upon a new era; we shall now give the Government every opportunity of trying to do things; we are going to have the best of good feeling." Here is a social problem which we should be able to settle if there is an ounce of good feeling among us. This is a more favourable opportunity of settling it than we have had for years, because no party has a majority and we could deal with the question without party feeding if the party feeling were not already there. As to what has been said by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) about the differences of administration in London, there are as great differences between various towns and districts throughout the country, and you will not be able to touch London without touching the rest of the country.

Earl WINTERTON: May I be allowed to say I was not making any reflection on the management of the London areas, as far as the ratepayers are concerned, but was merely stating that my experience was of London, and that I thought nothing could exceed the chaos in London.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not desire to misrepresent the Noble Lord. I think he is as anxious as I am that something
should be done. What I am rather sick about is that we should go on talking as we have talked at least half a dozen times this Session. The Government have asked us to sit down and try to agree to a scheme, and I cannot imagine that the Government are such lunatics as to go to that Committee or conference without any proposals to put before it. If they ask representatives of each section in the House to meet them they will have something to say to those representatives when they do meet. In any case I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham (Commander Eyres-Monsell) and his department will not turn down the proposal for a round table conference without thoroughly considering it. I think this is about the sixth time since February last that hon. Members have stood up here and solemnly told each other that this question is to be settled, that it is urgent and that it is a nonparty question. We are not going to be humbugged any longer.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: When this question was raised earlier this Session, it seemed to the Government that all parties were equally anxious that something should be done. There was a universal desire that the Poor Law system should be overhauled. It was not at all clear that the various parties could agree as to details of policy, but, in view of the fact that it did seem to have been lifted broadly—I do not say there may not have been differences of opinion—above party feeling, the most desirable method seemed to be that of co-operation from the start. I do not know at what stage the negotiations are. The intention was that if the Leaders of the parties could agree to a conference of this kind, the Ministry of Health should put before it concrete proposals, both as to procedure and policy, not overlooking the Rating and Valuation Bill to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) referred, and that out of that conference might come agreement before the actual Bill was drafted. That seemed to be a reasonable method of approach, and, if I may say so, one which was likely to lead to results more quickly and more satisfactorily than any other method. I can assure the House it was because we thought this method offered an opportunity for an early settlement
that we brought it forward, and I have no reason to think that that method will prove to be a failure, and, indeed, judging from what Members in the House have said with regard to the urgency of the Bill, I am quite sure that, given goodwill in this matter, there is no reasonable doubt that, as a result of this party consultation, all parties will come to some agreed scheme.

Sir K. WOOD: Why was not this suggestion made four months ago?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This suggestion was not made four months ago because the question of the Poor Law had not been raised four months ago.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House as to what exactly is the nature of his and the Government's idea of what this Conference should be? Is it to be a selection of Members appointed by different parties in the House, to which the Ministry of Health will submit proposals, which will then be criticised, I hope in a friendly spirit, and something in the nature of a Select Committee agreement arrived at, if possible? Or is it to be something of a different character to be arranged in some indefinite fashion? I think a good deal of the difficulty experienced by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), would be removed, and certainly there would be no need to divide against this Bill, if my hon. Friend would give us some definite statement on that matter.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I thought I had made it clear. The intention is that the parties should choose their own representatives to meet representatives of the Government to consider proposals put before them by the Ministry of Health, with a view, if possible—and I hope it will be possible—to arriving at an agreement.

Mr. MASTERMAN: That is practically a Select Committee without public sittings.

Mr. PRINGLE: Have any replies been received yet?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That I cannot say; I do not know.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I suggest it would be well not to exaggerate too greatly the hopes that may arise in some people from the existence of such a Conference as this. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) seemed to state that if party considerations were removed—as I am sure they would be removed in such a Conference—agreement could be reached. That is very far from my belief. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone suggested that I had read all the Blue Books on this subject. I have read all the Reports of the Poor Law Commission among others. For four years the Poor Law Commission sat to discuss this very subject. So far as I know, there was no party question in the matter at all. They found themselves at the end of the four years hopelessly divided. They produced a Majority Report—signed by Lord George Hamilton and others, and a Minority Report signed, I think, by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, and the guiding and inspiring spirit of which, I think, was the present President of the Board of Trade. What I see is that if some of us are serving on this Conference, some of the very same difficulties will crop up in exactly the same fashion as they cropped up in that Commission. Take once again the Committee to which the Noble Lord opposite has alluded, namely, the Committee presided over by the late Speaker of the House dealing with Areas. I entirely agree with the statement that the negative Report of that Committee was thoroughly unsatisfactory. If we were to adopt a negative report of the Committee, we could not make any progress towards equalisation, or adequately deal with the question of London and with the adjustment of rating. As the Noble Lord opposite also said, you are raising the whole rating question. You are raising a subject of gigantic size and importance, in which experts and men of good will have different ideas, and, very largely, ideas which they hold with the utmost tenacity.
Therefore, I would submit that we should not entertain too great hopes of the idea the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has suggested, that we can solve a question like this by the Government, as it were, throwing the responsibility on a certain limited number of gentlemen
selected from the different parties who, when the time comes for the Report, may find themselves repudiated by the very members of the party they are supposed to represent. I should think any scheme dealing with the drastic reform of the Poor Law would cut right across all party divisions, and that you would find members of all parties supporting certain Measures, and members of all parties supporting other Measures. Therefore, I suggest that, sooner or later, this Government, or any Government, will have to adopt a solution, not by collecting a Select Committee, and then giving private suggestions, about which the public outside will know nothing, and hoping that that Committee of the various parties will knock them into some shape which will be agreeable to everyone, but the Government must definitely come forward with a scheme of their own dealing with a subject of enormous dimensions and of considerable controversy. Then, I am sure, the whole House—certainly, speaking for a united party below the Gangway on this side—would be only too pleased, after such criticisms as were necessary, to refer that scheme of the Government to a Select Committee. Every member would then be in an independent position on that Select Committee, having taken evidence and examined it, to choose which he would support, and which he would not, and the Government could then pass a Measure which would be the opinion not of parties in the House, but of the House as a whole, independent of parties, and so provide a satisfactory solution of a problem which has plagued the social life and social condition of this country during the whole 20 years I have taken any part in its consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I think it must be quite obvious to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that the general feeling of the party on this side of the House, and of the party below the Gangway, is against the proposal of this round-table conference. Personally, I am inclined to think that a conference of that kind is the worst possible way of arriving at a solution quickly. The right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) has said very truly that this is a question which, of course, party divisions do not touch half as much as constituency differences.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not say constituencies. I was speaking of the differences between various types of social reformers.

Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps I may take it a step further, and say that constituency differences also cut across this question as well. Take London, with which I am personally connected. I can quite imagine the Noble Lord on my left, who, I believe, was thinking mostly of Poor Law administration in East London, might not agree with the views I take representing a constituency in West London, and I cannot on that account conceive of any satisfactory agreement, to which the three parties could put their names, being quickly arrived at by a conference composed of two or three members of each party. On that account, I do agree entirely with what has been said by several speakers in the Debate, that this is essentially a question for which the Government are responsible. The Government should introduce their Bill, should allow Members on all sides of the House to consider their proposals, and then, if need be, the Bill could be referred to a Select Committee. But whether that be so or not, I think the hon. Gentleman opposite need have no illusions that on all sides of the House there is a feeling against the proposal that he made at the beginning of the Debate this afternoon. That being so, if the Government really are anxious to deal with this question quickly, let them produce their Bill, and then, if need be, send it to a Select Committee.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR: Before this Bill is read a Third time, I should like, in a few words, to draw attention to an aspect which, I am afraid,
was not, perhaps, very fully realised by some of us when the Bill was in Committee. This Bill, as I understand it, gives the parish councils of Scotland the power of employing certain moneys provided by Parliament for emigration purposes. This Bill is drafted on the principle that if, as an alternative to relief in this country, the parish council think fit to use these moneys for emigration, they should do so. I heard an hon. Member in Committee put the point of view that emigration should be limited within the Empire. These are monies which are to be used for the purposes specified, and under these circumstances we might well limit the migration within the Empire.
But I want to raise this further question—I do desire very earnestly that this House should not allow this Measure to go from it here without some word of advice to the parish councils as to the administration of an Act of this kind. It may not be thought desirable by the House, but it may be a great temptation in the use of the money, not entirely to limit migration within the Empire. Speaking from the point of view of one who is greatly interested in the hopes and possibilities of these emigration schemes, it dons seem to me very desirable that the parish council should consider very carefully what provisions and hopes are held out to the individual they wish to assist. If the matter is looked at from that point of view, I can conceive of no undertaking which can be better supported by the parish councils. I think that this House will realise, and I hope, too, the parish council concerned, who have to deal with this Measure, will realise that to-day there are extensive steps being taken on the responsibility of the Dominion Governments, and that on the authority of the representatives of the Governments of our Dominions a guarantee and undertaking will be given to the authorities here at home that those individuals who do emigrate within the Dominions and Empire are properly looked after and given a reasonable hope of making good. I wish to emphasise this, because I think these are the moneys which are being used as an alternative to relief in this country, and on this ground there is a great deal to be said for some direction being given to the local authorities by the Government Department concerned in their handling of these
moneys. That is the sole purpose for which I rose. I am not in the least unfriendly to the Bill, nor am I against the relief and the encouragement which is given to people under this scheme.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like to say something in regard to the assistance being given to help emigration to our Dominions. Young men have gone—many of them from my constituency—having taken advantage of assisted passages. When they got to Australia, what happened? They were herded into sheds on the quay. They were given some coffee and bread, and then around came various overseers from distant parts, shouting along the row, "Jobs at 15s. a week." "Jobs at £1 a week." The result was that some of those young men, high spirited as they were, refused to take the 15s. or the £1. They went out upon their own. After travelling the greater part of Australia—I observe hon. Gentlemen opposite smiling—but I mean the greater part of Australia as we know it, from place to place and doing orra work—some hon. Members know what that means—and working their way back again to the coast, they found it impossible, after all, to come back to this country What followed? Three of them came back as stowaways. They are now in Glasgow. They are being pursued in order that they may repay the money included in the passage money.
There is no need to point out the necessity of keeping within the Empire if this is the kind of treatment that is going to be given in our Dominions and in our so-called Empire. I hope those in charge of the Bill will make it perfectly clear that whatever powers are given to the parish councils, that one of those powers shall—whatever the system of emigration—carry with it a guarantee that the kind of treatment I have related will stop. It is not impossible to have a proper system, given men who tell the truth in other parts about trade conditions and about the numbers required. There is nothing insuperable in having the information as to the kind of work wanted, the type of workman and the wages wanted. This matter has been referred to in this House for the last 18 months, to my knowledge, in relation to those going to Canada and Australia and other parts, and their treatment when they arrived there. I
hope that the Secretary for Scotland will see to it that whatever is done, some security will be given in the direction I have indicated.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): The points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Pollok Division (Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Gilmour) and the hon. Member for the Springburn Division (Mr. Hardie) were raised and fairly discussed on Second Reading. Hon. Gentlemen were present when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and they will remember that I pointed out that in this Amending Bill we were taking powers, on behalf of the parish councils in Scotland, exactly similar to those possessed by boards of guardians in England, namely, to assist able-bodied unemployed persons who desired to emigrate. If this Bill becomes law, the parish councils for Scotland will be enabled to assist these people. Prior to the introduction of this Bill, the attention of the Scottish Board of Health had been drawn, on numerous occasions, by the parish councils in Scotland to the desirability of them having the same power as the boards of guardians in England in relation to this particular point. That is to say, being able to assist people who desired to emigrate. I pointed out the provision made in Clause 1 of the Bill for this assistance, and I said that it was proposed, if the Bill became an Act, to recommend to the parish councils to work in close touch with the Overseas Settlement Committee. In view of this I do not know that I need go further into the matter, and I trust the House will allow me to get the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill he now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1924–25.

CLASS V.—LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other Expenses in connection therewith, including British Representation before the Permanent Court of International Justice; also for a Grant-in-Aid of Relief of Distress in Albania.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): In January last our attention was drawn by His Majesty's Minister at Durazzo to the famine conditions in Northern Albania. He suggested that a sum of about £20,000 might be adequate to meet this condition of affairs. His Majesty's Government were prepared, with the sanction of the Treasury, to give £5,000 provided the balance was made up by other members of the League. In March the Albanian Government made an appeal before the League of Nations Council, and the Council voted the sum of 50,000 Swiss francs from their Budget of 1924. At that time Lord Parmoor, representing the British Government on the League of Nations, said that if the Council considered that the League ought to respond to the appeal of Albania, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to take into consideration the giving of a sum not exceeding £5,000. Treasury sanction was finally given, and the Secretary of the League was informed by telegraph in April. Perhaps the Committee would like to know who the other contributors to this appeal were? Italy has contributed the sum of £5,100; Czechslovakia, £500; Spain, £300; the Rockfeller Institute, £2,300; the International Save the Children Fund, £600; the International Red Cross, £200; the Rumanian Red Cross, £10; and the League of Nations the £2,000 to which I have referred, all together rather over £11,000, excluding the contribution for which I am now asking the sanction of the Committee. May I say that Professor Pittard, of Geneva, has undertaken relief work, and he has already sent in a Report which shows that the funds at present at his disposal are inadequate. That is why we want at the earliest possible moment to get the sanction of this Committee for this £5,000, and I am sure for such an object as this I am not likely to appeal to the Committee in vain.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I agree that my hon. Friend need not make any lengthened appeal in regard to this Vote, but I am bound to say that, although there is
not a large amount involved, it does appear to me that it is a very doubtful principle upon which the Government are proceeding, and I should have liked a little more explanation in regard to this matter. First of all, what I noticed from the list of subscribers which the Under Secretary has given is that we apparently are giving a larger amount than any other Government. There is also an omission which I thought was very significant. I did not notice that any sum at all is being given by the Government of the United States.

Mr. PONSONBY: They are leaving that to their private organisations of charity.

Mr. McNEILL: That is where my objection comes in. If there is real widespread distress in Albania or anywhere else that may be a legitimate object for institutions like the Red Cross or any other private organisation to come forward and help, but that is a very different thing from the Government subscribing to a charity of this sort. I think the United States act on a sound principle when they leave such matters as these to their private organisers of charity. We have very good precedents for doing the same thing in this country, because time after time, when catastrophes have happened abroad, and when there has been evidence of real distress, there has never been any difficulty in organising a Mansion House subscription, which has always been most generously responded to by the charities of this country. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but in this case, first of all, we have no evidence, except that the Under-Secretary says that the Foreign Office were so advised by our representative, as to the existence of distress, its intensity, and how widespread it is. We have no facts whatever on which we can pass this Vote except the statement of my hon. Friend that he has been advised that there has been distress in Albania.
Why do the Government come here for a Vote, whether large or small, merely to relieve distress about which we have no particular evidence? If we pass this Vote, I do not know upon what grounds the Government can resist appeals of a similar character on account of distress in this country. We have heard of great distress being suffered by the people in the Highlands and islands of Scotland,
but there was no suggestion in this case that it was the duty of the Government to come forward with a grant. Why, in the name of everything that is reasonable, should the Government come to this House and ask for money for the relief of distress of this nature in a foreign country when we do not dream of doing it in our own country, where we leave it to the charity of private persons? I think this is really a very objectionable principle, and the only possible grounds upon which this House is likely to pass this proposal is on the plea that it is a very small sum.
I would like to point out that at the present time every £1,000 is a matter of vital importance to the taxpayers of this country. We are being asked to pass this Vote only on the ground that it is recommended by our representative on the League of Nations. Even on that ground I think there is some objection to it. It is a very important thing that the League of Nations should be a popular institution and that we should realise the great importance of its work, and whenever a considered recommendation is made to the Governments of Europe by the League of Nations it should be for some object about which there can be no cavilling. If this precedent is likely to be followed, if it gets to be known that the League of Nations acts as a sort of collecting agency for the charities of Europe, and that whenever they find distress anywhere all the League of Nations has to do is to say, "There is considerable distress in that particular part of the world, and we think it would be a very good thing if Governments would come forward and relieve that distress." I am certain there is nothing that could be done less likely to popularise the League and more likely to bring it into disrepute. For these reasons I am sorry the Government have adopted this course, instead of pointing out to the League that it is not within their function to propose charitable subscriptions of this sort. I wish to protest against this proposal, and if opposition to it is pressed to a Division, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against this Vote.

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: I am extremely sorry to hear this kind of criticism coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), who has just sat down, because, during the time that he was at the Foreign Office, he frequently took some
official action in relieving distress in the Near East. There is nothing new in this particular action of the League of Nations, because one of the greatest features of the work of the League of Nations has been the relief of distress by the collective energies of the members of the League. Those who are familiar with the working of the League know that there is no genuine appeal for assistance which has ever been turned down, and in this particular case the facts were quite obviously before the League.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to infer that the League had acted precipitately in this matter, that we had no information as to the distress, and that the question had not been adequately considered. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the Report of the Council of the League, and when the facts are brought to his notice I feel sure that he will not oppose this Vote. It was stated at the meetings of the Council of the League that at least 200,000 persons in the Northern part of Albania were in a grave state of distress and destitution. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone in this House at the present time that the troublous times in Albania have passed away. At one time armies passed through Northern Albania, and in the track of those armies there was destitution from which the people have never yet recovered. At a later stage there was trouble in those areas, and through the intervention of the Council of the League that trouble was averted and peace was restored. Nevertheless, the people have not recovered, and at a recent Council meeting of the League Lord Parmoor was appointed the rapporter upon the question of the condition of affairs in Northern Albania, and he represented that there was serious distress amounting to famine, and that a further sum of £15,000 would be required. This is all set out in full in the Report of the Council of the League.
We take some pride in having brought Albania to the position of a small sovereign State, which has now become a member of the League of Nations. For 500 years this little people, numbering more than one million, have been under the domination of the Turkish Empire, and they have at last been liberated from that yoke. The fact that they are to-day a sovereign State is primarily the work
of Lord Cecil. The position was that the Commission of Geneva considered the future of Albania, and they were against the admission of that country into the League of Nations, and it was only through the efforts of Lord Cecil that Albania was, in the end, considered to be a fit and proper State to become a member of the League. Surely, under these circumstances, it is not too much to ask that we should now join with the other nations in providing this small sum with which to deal with famine and distress in Northern Albania.
There is one other point which has not been mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman said that the usual practice in this country was to get private individuals to assist in such cases as this. May I point out that private individuals in this country are assisting. I agree that this is an exceedingly difficult time to raise money, but private individuals have raised some £2,800 for this purpose, and that is as much as they could be expected to do. I hope this sum of money will be voted.

Mr. R. McNEILL: At a time when it is considered very difficult to get people to subscribe privately, does the hon. Member think we are justified in forcing Governments to contribute?

Mr. HARRIS: Private subscribers have done as much as they can to relieve this distress, and we are only asking that their efforts should be reinforced by those nations who are members of the League.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member who has just spoken might have carried his history of Albania a little further back to another Member of this House who certainly converted Lord Cecil, and was more responsible for the fact that Albania exists to-day—I refer to the late Aubrey Herbert, because it was through his extraordinary activities throughout Europe, and especially in this House, that Albanian national existence obtains to-day. I cannot refrain from giving my support to this particular Vote this afternoon on the individual case. I agree that we ought to be very careful as to how these perpetual grants of State money should in future be brought before the House, and as to how far our representatives at Geneva are to commit them-
selves or Parliament—because it becomes almost a moral commitment—in making grants of this kind. I think my right hon. Friend will bear me out that last year, when the British Government joined in financing similar relief work in this part of the world under the supervision of Dr. Nansen, in connection with what are called the Denikin Russians—that is to say, those Russians who could not go back to Russia, for obvious political reasons, and who, owing to the organisation of the League, have been able to settle, some in Albania, some in Serbia, some in Bulgaria, and in the Balkan Peninsula, generally—that was financed by contributions from the States that are members of the League, and I am rather surprised that the Under-Secretary this afternoon has brought this forward as a single Supplementary Estimate for Albania only. I think it would be much better if, when we have a Supplementary Estimate for relief work under the auspices of the League of Nations, the Vote brought before the Committee all the relief works in which we are participating, not merely isolating one of them.
I understand that Dr. Nansen's work is still continuing, and that other States are participating in it. France only recently voted a further contribution for this purpose. If we are going to participate this year, I think that all these contributions ought to be brought together in one Supplementary Estimate. I think, also, that we should be very careful before we ask the Committee to assent to further commitments of this kind, because the burden falling upon the Exchequer of this country in recent years, over a very wide area, as compared with what is falling on other countries, is very great. After all, we had to bear enormous burdens for relief, particularly in Mesopotamia in connection with the Assyrians and the Armenians. I do not suggest for one moment that we are not right in helping these unfortunate disturbed peoples, but we have borne our share right nobly, and have done a great work. Not only have we done this, but our Colonies, like Cyprus, Malta and so on, have done so as well, and, out of their Colonial Budgets, have taken a great share in providing for relief for these unfortunate peoples in the Near East. We should, therefore, make it quite clear at Geneva that, while
Britain has played her part, and is willing to play her part, she wants loyal co-operation from the other members of the League. It would be much better if we could have this Estimate included in the annual League Budget, which we vote in the annual League Estimate when we are making our annual contribution to all the League purposes, and when the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary would defend it in Committee of the House of Commons. It would then be known exactly how much we are spending on all League purposes.
This is a comparatively small amount, considering the enormous range of activities of the League, but I agree that we do not want to give critics any occasion for saying that the League is merely a means of getting money cut of the British taxpayer, while other people are not paying. We do not want to give any handle by which people can bring forward that argument, and that is why I think it would be much better if all these various sums were brought forward in a proper Schedule, so that the country might know exactly what is being asked of it, whether for the Nansen Relief Fund, for the Greek refugees, or for other similar purposes. If the whole thing were thus set clearly before the Committee from time to time, it would be much more satisfactory. We should know where we were, and should be able to criticise on the various heads. I entirely agree, having read what I have read, that, particularly on the Montenegrin frontier, there has been for a long period of years the greatest unsettlement and political uncertainty. Montenegro, of course, has been completely swallowed, but there remains the Albanian population, and there has been, undoubtedly, friction between Albania and her big new neighbour on the north, Yugo-Slavia. That, among other things, has made matters particularly difficult for this very new nation. Albania has hardly got on its feet yet, and, very largely, as I have said, because of the memory of the late Member for Yeovil, I should like to support this Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I am sure we all sympathise most deeply with this new nation of Albania in the distress which is falling upon it, and with the efforts which the League of Nations is making to mitigate that distress. At
the same time, I do not think we have been given sufficient information in regard to very vital particulars in this Estimate. For example, we are told that the minimum sum required will be £15,000, and that approximately £11,000 has been promised. This Supplementary Estimate is for £5,000, which is a very large percentage of the £15,000 required. I think I am right in saying that there are between 45 and 50 nations who are members of the League of Nations, and I think we are entitled to know, or, at any rate, we are entitled to ask, what the other nations are doing with respect to this distress, which concerns them just as much as it concerns us. It must concern everyone. If we are contributing £5,000, and there are 45 other nations, to what extent, and in what respect, are they helping?
The taxpayers of this country cannot carry on their shoulders the whole of this burden, and we must, at any rate, have help from the other nations. It is not as though everything in this country were booming and prosperous, as in, say, 1919 or 1920. We have a great deal of distress at home, which makes it necessary that we should scrutinise these Estimates very carefully when they are put before us, for fear of drying up the springs of charity at home. With a few minor alterations in wording, the note appended to this Estimate might be made to apply to the distress which at present exists in the Western Islands of Scotland. There, as everyone knows, the distress is acute and is due to exactly the same cause as this distress in Albania, namely, that
Urgent need exists owing to famine in the .… districts following .… successive bad harvests.
That state of affairs exists in the Western Islands of Scotland, and I think we are entitled to ask what the Government are doing to mitigate the distress there. They are asking us to vote £5,000 for the relief of distress in Albania, while they are, apparently, doing nothing, or very little, to mitigate the distress which at present exists amongst our own kith and kin. Perhaps I am rather insular in my ideas, but I think that distress amongst our own kith and kin ought to take the prior place when we are appealed to for charity. Although I sympathise with the Government, it
seems to me that this is not so much a case for a Supplementary Estimate as for a Mansion House Fund. The Lord Mayor of London is always ready to open relief funds for distress, and I, for one, think that that would be a more suitable way, particularly in view of all the unrelieved distress and misery existing in the Northern part of these islands of our own at the present time.

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he is going to make a reply to the speech which we have just heard? I think it is fair to put before the Committee, before this money is voted, the question whether other nations are making proper and reasonable contributions before we have to do so ourselves. That does not seem to me to be an unfair attitude, or by any means an unsympathetic one towards the objects of the League itself. Every Member of the House could point to cases of distress in his own constituency, and we might very well say that this money could be used in, say, Woolwich or Greenwich or any other part of the country. I am not making any special claim of that kind, but certainly there should be some explanation from the Government as to why this particular grant should be made, and, particularly, whether we are being treated fairly so far as our contribution is concerned. I should not like to assert that other nations are not making equal and proper contributions, although it has been represented to me, I do not know with what accuracy, that a large number of nations are not paying their contributions to the League of Nations. If that be so, I think we should be told, and I think the Under-Secretary this afternoon ought to tell us, how the exact proportion has been worked out, why it is that we have to make this particular contribution, and whether or not we shall have to pay before the other nations pay.
As far as I remember, we have agreed on various occasions to make our contribution to efforts of this sort, and so have other nations; but in certain cases I believe to this day their contributions have not been paid, while we have paid ours. I may be wrong in that, and I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us. I could point, if he wished, as I dare say other Members could point, to very many cases of great distress and of people
living under terrible conditions to-day, and, while I should be anxious to help every other country, or every section of every other community in the world, out of its difficulties and miseries, I do think there is something to be said for the view that, before we begin to do that, we have to look after our own country and our own affairs. Without wishing to say anything whatever against the League of Nations, or anything that it may be doing, I think we must ask for some reply from the Under-Secretary on that point, and also as to how the contribution is arrived at, and whether, when we made this arrangement with other nations, it has been honourably and properly kept. If it is the case, as I have been told, that we made these arrangements and no one else pays—perhaps that is an exaggeration, but some do not pay—we ought to be told before we make a fresh arrangement of this kind, and it is with the hope that we shall hear exactly what the position is that I put these questions.

Mr. JAMES STUART: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member who mentioned distress in the Highlands, but there is also the question of assisting the Scottish fishermen in some way. If the Government can afford to make a grant of £5,000 towards relieving distress in Albania, on what ground is it that no assistance is offered to the Scottish fishermen?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to discuss the Scottish case. He can only just remark on it in passing. He cannot discuss it in any way on this Vote.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will not my hon. and gallant Friend be in order in contrasting the treatment which is meted out to the Scottish fishermen with the treatment the Government propose to give to the people of Albania?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said it is in order to remark on that in passing, but he cannot ask the Government the reason why they do not give relief to the Scottish fishermen.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In order to make the contrast, would not my hon. and gallant Friend be in order in saying what is the treatment which the Government have given to Scottish fishermen?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already dealt with that point, I think quite effectually.

Mr. STUART: I am anxious to find out how these things are arranged. I am of opinion that if the British Government can afford to make these grants to foreign countries all over the world, it can also afford to give some form of assistance to the very urgent distress within our own shores. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford rather led me to think this House is likely to be inundated with Supplementary Estimates in the future for the relief of distress abroad. I do not in the least wish to deprive foreign peoples of any assistance which we can afford to give them. I am extremely sorry for the Albanians and for the other people to whom he referred, but I am very strongly of the opinion that charity should begin at home. I have not the least doubt, if I may touch on the subject of the fishermen again, that the reason why the Secretary for Scotland has been unable to assist them is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him he has no money to spare, and if that is the case, I want to know how it is that he can give £5,000 to the distressed Albanians?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I want to emphasise two or three points which have been put to the hon. Gentleman, not with regard to the proposal which is brought before the Committee on its merits, but rather more with a view to ensuring, both in this and in other cases, that the relief which is promised will be effectively supplied by all those countries which become parties to these arrangements. There have been under successive Governments a number of cases where different countries, including this country, have promised assistance of one kind or another under arrangements made by the League of Nations or outside it, but when it came to collecting the funds which were to be distributed to the recipients of this bounty, this country supplied the money, and funds from other countries were singularly unforthcoming. With that experience before us, I think it is all the more necessary to make sure what are the terms on which we give our promise, and that for two reasons. I quite agree that it is a very necessary function of the League of Nations to meet, in so far as its constituent countries are able to do so, cases of distress, but it is
also a function of the League of Nations to see that the burden is borne according to the capacity to bear it, and in the interests of the distressed people themselves it is most important that this charity should not simply appear by names on the paper, but, if I may use a commercial metaphor, that those who underwrite these proposals should underwrite them firmly. I know that in many cases there have been subscriptions promised which have not been fulfilled. In this case, as far as I could appreciate it, there are only three Governments which have undertaken to find anything towards this relief apart from ourselves—Italy, Czechslovakia and Spain, there is a certain sum of money coming from the Rockefeller Institute and something from the Red Cross. It was not very clear whether that constituted the £11,000 and whether our sum was included.

Mr. PONSONBY: indicated dissent.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Our sum is not included. If there are only three Governments at present coming in I should have thought there ought to be more, and the line which should be taken by our representative at the League of Nations, both in the interests of this country and in the interests of collecting as much as possible from other countries, should be to say "the total amount that is required is so much." I do not cavil at the figure of £15,000. If the amount is £15,000 Great Britain should say, "provided other countries are prepared not only to promise but to pay, Great Britain will, in proportion as they make their payment, pay whatever is a reasonable quota for this country—say £4,000." That, I think, is right from the point of view of this country and is directly in the interest of those who are to benefit by the relief, and it is a businesslike way for our representative on the League of Nations and for the League itself. One criticism which is advanced very often, quite wrongly I think, against the League is that it is not sufficiently businesslike in the way it approaches its problems. It is this kind of thing which people get hold of which gives rise to that criticism. I ask the Under-Secretary to give us an assurance that we assent to these proposals on the assumption that other nations provide the money which is necessary to make up whatever is the required total, and that this country will only actually find the
cash pari passu with other nations paying up their contributions.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
This Supplementary Estimate, at first sight appears a very innocent and small item, but the more I examine it the more amazed I am that it should appear on the Paper, at any rate, at this particular time. If one studies the footnote, which is by far the most important information given in the Paper, one finds that, up to the present, £11,000 has been promised by other Governments. Surely it would be time enough to introduce this Supplementary Vote when we have some evidence laid before us that other Governments have not only promised, but have taken steps to put a Vote before their respective legislative assemblies and make sure of having these sums paid. That is all the more important in view of the fact that, up to date, Great Britain has borne the greater portion of the financial burden in supporting the League of Nations. Surely it is time to call a halt and not to go on standing the major portion of the expenditure without some further and more satisfactory explanation than we have had.
There is another point I should like to call attention to. The expenditure out of the Grant-in-Aid will not be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, nor will any unexpended balance of the sums issued be liable to surrender at the end of the financial year. That in itself is a little unusual, but I am not surprised that the Department should take the precaution of putting that note on the Paper except for the fact that a minimum amount is estimated to be required, namely £15,000, of which £11,000 has been promised. Surely the maximum that we should be asked to contribute under any circumstances would be £4,000. Surely it is entirely out of place to ask us to-day to pass a Vote of £5,000 which, added to the amount guaranteed by other countries, makes £16,000, or £1,000 in excess of the minimum which they themselves say is necessary. Taken in conjunction with the footnote that they are not bound to account for any unexpended surplus, in other words that if there is an unexpended surplus of £1,000 taken from Great Britain in excess of the minimum estimate
they themselves have put forward, they are not bound to account for it, it is an absurd proposal.

Lord APSLEY: I have no wish to oppose this Vote, if only for the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, in memory of Major Aubrey Herbert, but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give us any guarantee that the money proposed to be spent will be effectively used, especially since we are bearing such a very large proportion in comparison with other nations. It is not only that we have to remedy the actual existing distress, which is very great indeed, but we must find some provision for the future, otherwise the League of Nations will be asking this country to contribute a like amount again. The only cause I have heard given was the War, and the only district mentioned was the northern part of Albania. Although the district round Scutari has been very much impoverished since the War—I was there a short time ago, and can bear testimony to that—the real distress is far deeper and the causes also are very much deeper. The valley of the Drin and through the mountains is where the actual starvation area really begins, and although the War was actually one of the causes, it was by no means the principal cause. Since the War that country has been occupied on two occasions by troops of a neighbouring Power. I have no wish to make any remarks which might be considered unfriendly towards a friendly Power, but that was the case. On the second occasion it was only on the urgent representations of the British Government that that Power withdrew her troops. In doing so, they carried off a considerable quantity of cattle, and they either burned or carried off a large quantity of corn. I do not wish to make any great capital on that point. I have sufficient experience of Balkan affairs to know that that is nothing unusual. The Albanians themselves, who are a fair-minded people, would be the first to assure me that if the boot had been on the other leg and a regular force of Albanians had been in occupation of a neighbouring country, and they had been compelled to retire, they would have thought it highly irregular not to take something away from that country.
It is none the less a fact that these unfortunate people are in a bad plight.
They have been compared to the fishermen of Scotland, but I should say that the state of Albania at the present time is very much like the state of Scotland before the Union, or the state of Ireland at the present time. This particular district has been undoubtedly devastated on several occasions, and their cattle has been carried off, and their corn either carried off or destroyed. It is to replace their cattle and their corn that help is being given to them by the League of Nations, towards which we are asked to contribute. This is not an unsual thing for the Albanians. It has happened time after time in their history. The real cause of the trouble is that the boundary has been drawn on more or less ethnological lines. I have seen a good many boundaries drawn in Europe, and we are trying to draw a boundary in Ireland at the present time. It is very difficult to draw a boundary on ethnological lines, and to keep it on economic lines at the same time. That is the case in Albania. The boundary included several towns in the Jugo-Slav side which used to be the principal market towns of the Albanian Highlanders in the Dibra district. The boundary now places the town of Dibra itself on the Serbian side.
The trouble is that owing to the fiscal policy adopted by the Jugo-Slav Government, it is almost impossible for any of the Albanian highlanders to sell their goods over the Serbian frontier. I regret to say that there are large numbers of countries in Europe, including our own, who have not yet realised that on a good fiscal policy a good deal of the prosperity of the country depends, and they are rather inclined sometimes either to use the fiscal policy for party political purposes, or to use it as an additional arm of the Foreign Office with which to bludgeon their enemies. That is, I am afraid, the case in a good many cases in Central Europe at the present time, and particularly so in Albania. Either the League of Nations should request the Jugo-Slav Government to alter their fiscal tariff, and to allow goods to be sold by the Albanians in these markets, or until a fresh frontier can be drawn which includes the previous markets within Albanian territory, otherwise I am afraid the starvation in Albania will not be to any extent minimised by whatever grants we shall be able to give them. There is only one other alternative, and
that is the creation of a road across the mountains, which will allow them to bring their goods to the West, but that will take a great deal of time and a large amount of money, which Albania cannot raise at the present time.
There is one other question, and that is the general development of Albania. So far, I have only dealt with the starvation area, but hinging upon that question is the general question of the development of Albania. If the League of Nations are going to take this matter up, and if we are going to contribute such a very generous share towards the League of Nations in taking up the question, it is only right that we should have some say in regard to it. Apart from the question of humanity, there are very important diplomatic questions involved. Albania is a buffer State at the present time. The condition of a buffer State at any time is not a very enviable one, and I do not think the position of Albania is very enviable for that reason.
Apart from that, there is the question of her development as a nation, and one of the first things which should be done is to take in hand the drainage of the low-lying country, particularly in the Central Tirana district, because this country is at present water-logged for a great part of the summer, and consequently full of malaria. Until the country is drained and malaria is cleared from the country, it will be very difficult for any energy to be got into the life of the lowlands. The highlands are clear, but the lowlands have displayed a remarkable lack of energy for the reason that they are full of malaria. On humanitarian grounds we should ask the League of Nations to give the Albanian Government some assistance towards getting on with the drainage as soon as possible.
Lastly, I think we are entitled to ask that the League of Nations should see that the Albanian Government are given a free choice, without any pressure being put upon them, as to what contracts they make for the development of their own country. At the present time there is terrific jealousy between not only the neighbours of Albania but other Powers, whose firms may like to take a hand in regard to this question. As an example, I may mention that a little over a year ago a very capable officer was engaged by the Albanian Government to act as
adviser in the Interior, Colonel Stirling, who had a very fine record in the Sudan. No sooner had he got his appointment, independent of the League of Nations, than a great agitation was raised, and the Albanian Government was forced, through the representations of the League of Nations, to take on several other gentlemen of different nationalities to act as representatives in other capacities.
It was urged that as a Britisher had been appointed, an Italian, a Frenchman, a Belgian, a Dutchman, and so on, should be appointed. These gentlemen were appointed at large salaries, but, apparently, the Albanian Government found later that they could not possibly afford them. I think the Albanian Government should be given a free choice to do what they like. In the present state of affairs the only Power that is really developing Albania is Germany. Not being a member of the League, nobody can object to what Germany is doing, and she does what she likes. She has made several contracts, including a big timber clearing contract—

Mr. PERRY: We are all interested in the speech of the Noble Lord, but, on a point of Order, I should like to know what it has to do with the Amendment we are discussing.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Surely it is in order to point out what are the conditions obtaining in Albania and how far we should insist upon these or other conditions being made effective in order that our relief may be applied in the best possible way.

Mr. PERRY: We are not discussing the policy of Albania.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Noble Lord was quite in order.

Lord APSLEY: I have no wish to weary the Committee with long details My only point lay in this, that in giving relief to Albania, we should urge the Foreign Office to see that an effective guarantee is given, seeing that we are giving such a generous contribution in comparison with other nations, that we shall not be asked for a similar contribution in future. All that hinges not only on the present starvation of the country but on the future development of the country. I think a
request should be made that the Albanian Government be given a free hand in the matter of the development of the country, and that she should be allowed to make contracts with whatever firms make offers and good tenders to develop their own country, and that there should be no pressure put upon them by one nation or another. Germany is the only nation that has made any headway as far as work is concerned in the development of the country. She has made a big contract in regard to timber, and, secondly, she is building a large aerodrome there, in connection with which they intend to run a passenger service from the North. Though I support the Vote very warmly, I do ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to request that it shall be spent in such a way that we shall not be required to give a similar Vote in future.

Mr. PONSONBY: I am sure that the Committee have listened with great interest to the well-informed speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley). He is an expert on Albania, and I am sure that it would have done the heart of our friend the late Lieut.-Colonel Aubrey Herbert good to have realised that some other hon. Member of this House was continuing the work to which he paid so much attention. The Noble Lord I supported this Vote, as also did the hon Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). I They were notable exceptions in a series of what I really must describe as deplorable speeches from the benches opposite If charity is going to be dispensed in this niggardly spirit, then I think we ought to be heartily ashamed of it. To suggest that in matters of charity, we should wait for example from other nations, or for promptings from other nations, is deplorable, and I hope Great Britain will do no such thing.
We are told that we ought not to give this sum of money unless we can be perfectly certain that everybody else is going to pay up. We must see that all who have made promises have paid their last shilling before we open our pocket. That is the sort of spirit that the British Government is asked to display in giving charity to these unfortunate people. These people have gone through unparalleled suffering. They have had three successive bad harvests; they have had floods and plagues of locusts and
they have been in very dire need of assistance. We come to the Committee thinking that the Vote of this small sum, given for the purpose of helping these poor people in their distress, would be passed with acclamation, and we have these petty objections brought forward The leader in regard to this matter has been my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill). It is a serious matter, because although my right hon. Friend has not the actual responsibility now, he still has the aroma of responsibility about him. He was a very much distinguished member of a very much less distinguished Government, and he speaks now with some authority, and I must say that I am very much disappointed with the tone he adopted, and that his leadership has been associated to-day with the very deplorable series of speeches to which the Committee have listened.
The argument has been put forward time after time: why were we not assisting this object or some other object in this country or some other country? That is an argument that could be used without any limit, but the very example given by the right hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) was, unfortunately, a false one, because he complained that we were not allocating anything for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and he seems to have forgotten that the Government have submitted an Estimate for £100,000 for seed potatoes, and other means of relieving distress in that part of the country. But when the League of Nations, after careful consideration, and after receiving full reports, have gone into this matter, and the small sum of £5,000 is asked for, it does not seem befitting for the Committee of the House of Commons to bring forward these petty objections. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The hon. Member for Stafford said that he would like a grouping of Estimates of this character, so that they might be dealt with as a whole. I see the force of that argument, but this particular Estimate is the only one which we bring forward in reference to something done through the League of Nations.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate continuing the grant which the late Government gave towards Dr. Nansen's work, or towards establishing Russian refugees
in Constantinople in the different Balkan countries?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question offhand, but I understand the point and will make inquiries. Other measures which are not being done through the League of Nations come under the ordinary Foreign Office Vote. I do not think that I need say anything more on this Vote. I feel that the great majority of the Committee are strongly in favour of this sum being voted, and it has been to me a matter of surprise and regret that there should be any opposition to the rapid passage of this Vote.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I did not intend to intervene again, but the hon. Gentleman has not in the least dealt with any of the arguments brought forward from this side. They were not arguments condemning relief in general or the work of the League of Nations or this particular form of relief. To put a specific point to him, he says that it requires £15,000 to give this relief and that certain other countries have promised to do something, and we are asked to vote £5,000, which is £1,000 more than the sum mentioned in the Estimate. Therefore, I would like to know why the sum asked for is £5,000 to make up the £15,000 and not £4,000 which, with the £11,000 already voted, would make up the £15,000? On various occasions sums of money are asked for and we are told that other countries have promised to do something. We do not in the least suggest in reference to this matter that this country should wait until the other countries have paid everything. What we ask is that we shall go forward with them pari passu. That means step by step with them. That is not only fair to the taxpayer of this country, but it is a means of insuring that you will not only get the £5,000 from this country but that you will get the whole of the £15,000.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: Like a great many hon. Members, I have every possible sympathy with the requests to assist distressed communities, but the Under-Secretary has no right to come down here and suggest that it is not befitting for hon. Members to criticise or to make inquiries as to a particular grant when the League of Nations has recommended that that grant should be made. The Under-Secretary went out of his way to lecture the
Committee, and though we are accustomed to hear hon. Members who occupy positions on the Front Bench utter testimonials as to the excellence of their own Government and their party, it is a little unbecoming of the hon. Gentleman to address slightly opprobious observations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) and to describe in this matter his own Government as a more excellent one than the last. I would suggest to the hon. Member, inasmuch as he is a member of this Government, that it would be more befitting, to use his own language, on his part, to allow other people to blow his own trumpet. I would recommend the hon. Member to reply to the genuine inquiries which have been addressed to him.

Mr. LEIF JONES: You were not here.

Sir T. INSKIP: I heard nearly all that was said.

Mr. JONES: I saw the hon. and learned Gentleman when he took his seat, and he certainly did not sit there during the whole of the discussion, but I apologise for not noticing that he was in a remote part of the House.

Sir T. INSKIP: I was not in a remote part of the House. I heard all the speeches except the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury, and I was in the seat which I was occupying until I rose to address the Committee. I would suggest that when the League of Nations makes a request to this House to give a grant, we are entitled to know what the grant is, and the extent to which it is specially required to assist distressed communities who require our assistance, and if the hon. Member will give the information which is asked from this side, he will not only commend this particular grant, but will dispose the Committee on future occasions to give more attention to the requests and invitations of the League of Nations, because they will have reason to know from their past experience that those requests are based on good solid ground. I still hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to inform the Committee on some of those matters on which inquiries have been addressed to him by hon. Members who are in favour of giving this grant if adequate reasons are advanced.

Mr. PONSONBY: In answer to the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) in reference to the sum of £15,000 which he mentioned, I do not think that I mentioned that at all. His Majesty's Minister recommended an expenditure of £20,000. £11,000 has been promised by organisations and by other nations, and we had promised £5,000, making a total of £16,000 out of the £20,000 which His Majesty's Minister said would meet the case.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman does not deal with the other points which were raised. I would ask him why the Estimate says that the minimum amount estimated to be required is £15,000. Are we to understand that the Lord President of the Council held one view and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, who are responsible for Estimates, held another view, because I assume that the responsible figure is the figure given in the Estimates? The point that is raised on this side is that if we simply vote £5,000 to-day, and do not make any firm condition with regard to other countries, the probability is that £5,000 is what the Albanians will get, and £5,000 only. If on the other hand we give an undertaking that we shall pay out our share of the money in proportion as the other countries pay theirs, we shall be strengthening the hands of the League of Nations and shall be much more likely to get the sum desired. The Committee is not treating this Estimate in the least in a hostile way. The hon. Member should give the Committee the assurance which we ask for, or should state why he will not do so.

Mr. BALFOUR: I did not move the Amendment in any hostile spirit, but it is not right to expect us to pass this Vote without more explanation than has been given. The explanation given is that the total sum, including the £11,000 promised by other countries, is £16,000 out of the total of £20,000. On the paper it is specically stated that the estimated amount required for this purpose is £15,000, of which £11,000 had already been promised, making a difference of £4,000, and the hon. Gentleman should explain why the Committee are asked to vote £1,000 more than the minimum amount stated on the paper. In the absence of that explanation, I feel that I must press the Amendment for a reduction.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I have rather a divided mind on this matter. I know something about Albania. I have travelled in the country, and I know of the extreme poverty and should be sorry if they did not get the money, but it is a bad precedent that we should be always asked to make substantial contributions while others who are more directly interested are doing nothing. I gathered from the speech of the hon. Gentlemen—I was not present at the time—that he did not announce any contribution from the actual neighbours of Albania—Greece and Jugo-Slavia. That is, to say the least of it, disappointing, as in view of recent history it is rather up to them, in a case like this, to show that they intend to do some thing. I understand that they are contributing nothing. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that it is their intention to contribute anything? I gather that he cannot give any decided assurance on that point. Under the circumstances, attention ought to be called to this matter in some prominent way, and I think, accordingly, that the question for us had better be adjourned. I therefore move to report progress.

Mr. REMER: I rose a few minutes ago to continue the Debate. I have never heard, in the whole six years that I have been in the House, so discourteous and, I might say, rude an answer as that given by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He has not given to this Committee the slightest reply either to my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) or my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) as to why this discrepancy of £1,000 has arisen. Are these the tactics which the Labour Government are going to apply in this House—the tactics of being deliberately discourteous to it, and not attempting by any means in their power to give a reasonable reply when criticisms are made; I might almost say, tactics of ill-temper when anybody presumes to rise and criticise or ask for explanations. I must say I am shocked that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have been treated in this discourteous way. It is quite apparent from this White Paper that this discrepancy of £1,000 has arisen and has not been
explained away. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give some reasoned answer that anybody can understand, so that we can be assured. I am as anxious as anybody to give every possible encouragement to the League of Nations, but we find great difficulty, owing to the speech to which we have listened, in giving any support whatever. I believe that if the hon. Member will imitate the hon. Member who sits on his loft (Mr. W. Graham), who is always courteous and respectful to Members of the House, and is always ready to listen to what we have to say, he will shorten the Debate very considerably. I deplore, very considerably, the speech to which we have just listened.

Mr. PONSONBY: I can assure hon. Members opposite that I intended no discourtesy whatever, and I very much regret that I have given that impression by the remarks that I made. I was somewhat surprised that the Estimate should have caused so much criticism, and I am only anxious to give all the information I possibly can to meet the questions which have been put to me. Perhaps I may say how this sum of money arose in order that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment may see how matters stand.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is that I report progress. We had better get rid of that Motion first. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hope) proposes to insist on the Motion, but the hon. Member had better restrict himself to it.

Mr. PONSONBY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who moved it to be good enough to withdraw it in order that we may get this Supplementary Estimate. I do not quite understand the reason for desiring to Report Progress. I am willing to give as much information as I can.

Mr. HOPE: It would not be out of order for the hon. Gentleman to reply to my point. I asked if the immediate neighbours of Albania were contributing anything to this fund, and I suggested that we should not vote the money until the matter had been brought to their attention in some definite form. I submit that it would not be out of order for the hon. Gentleman to reply to that point which was the point on which I moved.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. If it be in order for a Minister on a Motion to Report Progress to refer to a specific point raised before that Motion was moved, is it not equally in order for the same Minister to reply to the same point raised by the hon. Member on the other side of the House who moved the Amendment? Both points seem to deal with the question of whether the whole of the financial responsibility of Albania in the League of Nations is to be borne by this country. Consequently, it seems to me that the question put by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Hope) as well as the terms of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) are equally at stake in this question. If the Minister can reply to one question, it seems to me entirely apposite to reply to another.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Anything would be in order which answers the Motion to Report Progress. The right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hope) has said that he asked to move to Report Progress because he was not satisfied on this point. It will be in order to deal with it, but not with the specific point concerned with the Amendment which has been moved.

Mr. L. JONES: I took my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hope) to say that the reason for wishing to Report Progress was that we should not vote this money until the neighbours of Albania had had an opportunity of considering whether they should subscribe, and that we should bring the matter to their notice. That necessarily involves Reporting Progress, and it is a condition which cannot be fulfilled before we vote to-night.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not understand that. I understand that he was asking for information on a certain point.

Mr. PONSONBY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman asked whether Greece and Yugo-Slavia are contributing to this relief of Albania. The Greek Government have not so far expressed any intention to contribute. Only these Governments, the names of which I read out earlier, have done so. I do not think it
would be exactly our duty to make the suggestion to them. We contributed on the understanding that certain sums would be made up by other nations and societies, and, on that being done, we promised our contribution. I think it would be outside our power to specify certain Governments and demand contributions from them.

Mr. BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman not undertake that if the sum is voted nothing will be paid until efforts have been made to obtain contributions from the countries named by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. HOPE: I confess that I am not very well satisfied that the neighbours of Albania should not be contributing, but I understand that we have given a definite promise that we shall give so much if other sums are got from other sources. I will not persist in my Motion, but ask leave to withdraw.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted for the said Service."

Mr. PONSONBY: I will explain how the matter stands. £20,000 was a rough estimate for this relief work; £15,000 is the sum estimated in the White Paper The contribution of His Majesty's Government is £5,000, which was given on the understanding that a certain sum should be found by other nations. The sums which I read out, and which I gave only approximately in the sterling equivalent, have been promised by those various nations. These have not materialised, and I am inclined to think that £15,000 will be insufficient to deal with relief work. I do not think that our £5,000 will reach sufficiently far even if the other contributions I have read out all come in.

Mr. REMER: The position to me is absolutely as clear as mud. The hon. Member could accept a reduction of £1,000, and, having accepted it, could come to this House again and ask for further money if he wanted it. I am quite sure the Committee is dissatisfied with the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has handled this question.

Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot say that I am satisfied with the explanations which
have been given, but on this side we have every desire to show the proper spirit, and we assume that on this occasion they know what they are doing, though they do not explain. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

CHAIRMAN OF STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir K. WOOD: I desire to raise a question affecting the privileges of this House. I think that Members in all parts of the House are justly jealous of any attack which may be made on any of its Members. The ordinary give-and-take of party politics, and matters of that sort, we are all prepared to take our share of, but I desire to call attention at the earliest opportunity to a leading article which appeared in the "Daily Herald" of Saturday last. The article deals with the affairs of one of the Standing Committees upstairs, and so far as the arguments used in the article deal wish the particular views—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle): I think the hon Member had bettor wait until Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, if he is raising a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker will shortly be here.

Orders of the Day — FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I take this opportunity of explaining in a few sentences the purpose of this Bill, and, probably as it is an agreed Measure, the House will allow it to go through before other business is taken. The Bill proposes to amend Sections 1, 62 and 65 of the Friendly Societies Act of 1896. The first Amendment of that Act proposed will enable an assistant registrar, who has occupied that office for five years, to become chief registrar, although, under
the terms of the old Act, he may not do so unless a barrister of 12 years' service. That change in the Act is proposed in order to get rid of the difficulty with regard to promotion in the Department.

Mr. SPEAKER: resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

CHAIRMAN OF STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir K. WOOD: I desire to call attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to a question of privilege, and I may explain that I wish to raise no party issue or any matter of that kind, or to object to the ordinary give-and-take of party politics. I think Members in ail parts of the House will agree that, when an attack is made upon a Member who occupies the position of Chairman of a Standing Committee, and on his conduct in the Chair of that Committee, it is right to call attention to the matter and that the House should take some notice of it. The particular statement to which I call attention is contained in the "Daily Herald" newspaper of Saturday last. It is a leading article on page 4, and is entitled "From the workers' point of view."
It deals with the conduct of the Committee which is considering the Rent Restrictions Bill upstairs. I do not wish in any way to refer to the proceedings of that Committee, but simply to refer to the statement which is made in this newspaper as to the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee, who is respected in every quarter of the House.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Not by some Members of the Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: There are three references in the article, and I will refer briefly to them, and move a Motion. The first reference is to the protracted nature of the proceedings of the Committee, and says.
Thanks to the antiquated and lumbering procedure of the House of Commons, and to the partiality of the Tory Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, they have so far been successful.
A further reference to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett), is this:
The deliberate wasting of time ought to be reported to the Speaker, and the conduct
of the Chairman should call down upon him the censure of the House.
The third reference in the article in unmistakable terms accuses the Chairman of the Committee of partiality and misconduct in that capacity. It says:
He has tolerated, even encouraged, the wreckers. He has allowed them, for example, to submit frivolous Amendments, scribbled down during the proceedings. Things have come to such a pass that we doubt whether it is worth while to go on with the Bill.
I will not make any further references, except to say that it is a most improper attack upon one of the Members of this House, who is fulfilling a very honourable position as Chairman of one of our Standing Committees, and whom, so far as I know, everyone treats with respect and consideration. Having brought this matter to the attention of the House, I have no desire to raise any question of controversy, but I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice, namely:
That the statement in the 'Daily Herald' of Saturday last is a gross libel on the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras, Chairman of Standing Committee A, and is a grave infringement of the privileges of this House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I beg to move to leave out from the word "last" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "be referred to the Committee of Privileges."
The Deputy-Leader of the House is unable to be present at the moment, and so it devolves upon me to speak on behalf of the Government. I am afraid that I am not very well acquainted with the matter that has been raised. I have not seen the article to which the hon. Member has called attention; but it appears to the Government to be a matter that ought to be referred to the Committee of Privileges, and if that would meet the views and desires of the hon. Member responsible for this Motion and the House generally, I would move the Amendment to the Motion. I believe that the Committee of Privileges has not been set up this Session, but if the House accepts my Amendment the Government will at once take steps to constitute that Committee, and without any delay the matter will be referred to the Committee's adjudica-
tion. I hope that the House will accept the suggestion.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I am very much in the same position as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for, although a member of the Standing Committee, I have not been very regular in my attendance. Certainly the words which have been read out appear to me to be a very clear case of breach of the privileges of this House. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. That seems to me to be a proper course in the circumstances, and I hope the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) will accept the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I accept the suggestion.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not want to delay the proceedings or to prevent the matter going to the Committee of Privileges, but I want to ask why, on a question of this kind, this procedure is adopted, seeing that I, a year or two ago, raised the question of privilege because of an attack made by a newspaper, not merely on the political but the real honesty of a Cabinet Minister, and I was ruled out of order. The matter in question was the attack made by the editor of "Plain English" upon Mr. Winston Churchill when he was a Cabinet Minister. It accused him of gerrymandering the report of the battle of Jutland and receiving a present from those who benefited financially from that gerrymandering. I would like to know why it is that upon an occasion such as that, when a question of the honesty of a Minister of the Crown was involved, the action which I proposed, namely, that the House should summon the editor of that paper to the Bar, was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, and yet, on this occasion, when a statement is made—I am not saying whether it is in good faith, but probably the editor thought it was in good faith—the matter should be brought up in this House and referred to the Committee of Privileges for consideration and report.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not any personal recollection of the case to which the hon. Member refers, and, therefore, I am not able to answer his question. If he will look up the reference, and give it to me later, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. MACLEAN: I shall be glad to do that.

Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not a fact that to establish a case of breach of privilege the words complained of must reflect on the conduct of a Minister or Member in some action or duty actually in this House, and in connection with the proceedings of this House, and that, therefore, the action of a Minister in circulating or assisting to circulate a report upon an outside event would not fall within the rule?

Mr. SPEAKER: That may have been the ground, but without further investigation I would not like to express an opinion.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the question of privilege, so far as a Minister of the Crown is concerned, refers not only to his action or utterances within this House, but to his action or utterances in connection with his duties as a Minister inside or outside the House?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: If we adopt the Amendment, are we leaving the question of deciding whether this is a matter of privilege to the Committee of Privileges, or are we first deciding that in our opinion it is a question of privilege? A serious attack has been made on a Member of this House who carried out the responsible official duties to which he was appointed by the House. If this is remitted in accordance with the Amendment, shall we have a report and be able at any period later to consider it without having to ask the permission of the Government? Will it still be a matter of privilege that stands first in the procedure of the House? If that be not so, I should imagine that what we are really doing by carrying the Amendment is shelving the whole question. Before I vote I would like to know exactly what the House is doing.

Mr. PRINGLE: As I understand the matter, if the Houses passes the Amendment the question whether a breach of privilege has been committed will be left to the Committee, and it will be the duty of the Committee to report to the House whether there has been in fact a breach of privilege. When the House receives the Report it will be for the House to decide what action, if any, is appropriate,
assuming that the Committee decides that a breach has been committed. I doubt very much the wisdom of raising at all these questions of privilege. I raised the question of privilege regarding the personal liberty of Member of the House, with the result that he has been delivered from captivity, but that is quite a different matter from raising a question of privilege in relation to the House itself, and imposing a penalty on some outsider who is alleged to have infringed the privileges of the House. On former occasions in recent times, when it has been found that such a breach of privilege has been committed, the House has had to be content with a barren censure, and if the person guilty of the breach was recalcitrant the House had no remedy. In these circumstances it may become a matter for the House to consider whether it is worth while to continue.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government propose to set up the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As soon as possible.

Mr. HOPE: On the point of Order raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward). I take it that the Report of the Committee, when presented, will be debatable, and that a Motion can be made on the presentation of the Report.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is so. I would require to look up the precedents on that matter.

Mr. L. JONES: May we have an assurance from the Government that if the Committee of Privileges does make a Report, not only will that Report be presented to the House, but an opportunity will be given of diseasing its findings. Committees are constantly reporting to the House without any day being set apart or any opportunity given of discussing those Reports. If that is to be the case in this instance, then the whole question will be shelved, as has been suggested.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think, in the view of a good many Members in this House, this is a rather unusual point, and I do not know what is the ordinary procedure in regard to such matters. I should think that the Committee will, as a matter of course, report to the House,
and the inquiry and the recommendations of the Committee, if there be any recommendations, would be quite useless unless an opportunity were given to the House to act upon them. I think I may take it upon me to say that the Government will give an opportunity to the House to consider the matter.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'be referred to the Committee of Privileges' be there added," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the statement in the "Daily Herald" of Saturday last be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Orders of the Day — FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [Lords].

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now Read a Second time."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: In briefly moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I desire to explain that its object is to amend Sections 1, 62 and 65 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896. The Measure embodies an agreed scheme dating from the latter part of last year. Under the old legislation provision was made for the appointment of a Chief Registrar who must be a barrister of not less than 12 years' standing, and it was also arranged to appoint Assistant Registrars in England one of whom at least must be either a barrister or solicitor of seven years' standing, one Assistant Registrar in Scotland and one in Ireland. The object of the first Amending Clause of this Bill is to provide that anyone who has held the office of Assistant Registrar for five years shall be eligible for appointment to the post of Chief Registrar, it being considered, even though a person has not been 12 years a member of the Bar, if he has carried out the duties of Assistant Registrar efficiently he should be eligible and I do not think there will be any objection to that provision. The first Amendment which the Bill proposes is the removal of that disability, which I am sure will commend itself to the unanimous support of the House.
The second Amendment which this Bill proposes relates to Section 62 of the Act of 1896. Hon. Members will recall that the Act of 1896 provides for the payment of certain funeral allowances on the deaths of children, that is to say, £6 up to five years of age, and £10 up to 10 years of age. When the Industrial Assurance Act of last year was passing through Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) incorporated that part of the Act of 1896 in the Measure, and it was at that time proposed by hon. Members now on this side of the House, and by hon. Members in other parts of the House as well, to substitute a rather better scale of £6 in the case of a death of a child under three, £10 in the case of the death of a child under six, and £15 in the case of the death of a child up to 10 years of age—in short, to bring the rate of these allowances up to a point more in keeping with the increased charges made for funeral expenses at the present time. That Amendment was accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and incorporated in the Industrial Assurance Act, which, however, was limited in its scope to the industrial assurance companies. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out at the time that it would be necessary, in order to put the friendly societies, the trade unions and the collecting societies on the same footing as the industrial assurance companies, to introduce a short Bill, which would be, no doubt, an agreed Measure, and put all branches of the enterprise on terms of equality.
The object of the present Bill is to give effect to that promise. There is a certain urgency in this matter, in that the Industrial Assurance Act came into operation at the beginning of the year and the industrial assurance companies have enjoyed this privilege for several months, while the trade unions, friendly societies and collecting societies have so far been deprived of it. The other portions of the Bill are consequential on those I have just described. Provision is made, in the case of the registrar giving a certificate, for the alteration of the amounts on the proposed new basis. There is no other element in the Bill which calls for description. I think there is no division of opinion upon it, and I have every confidence the House will give it a Second Reading unanimously.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I desire to confirm what my hon. Friend has said, namely, that there was a general measure of assent in the House, when the Industrial Assurance Bill was passing through its Report stage, that a Bill of this character should be introduced at the earliest possible moment. I desire to thank my hon. Friend for fulfilling a pledge which I am prevented from fulfilling myself, and to express the hope that in view of the urgency mentioned by my hon. Friend, the House will allow this Bill to go through all its stages as soon as possible.

Mr. SEXTON: Without desiring to detain the House, I wish to call attention to the severe hardship suffered by old servants of the County Courts. Some consideration should be given to these men who have spent a lifetime in the service of the Crown and who are not allowed to count any part of that service for superannuation.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is dealing with the wrong Bill. We are now discussing the Friendly Societies Bill.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I fear I shall not do much better than the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), but there are some points in connection with this Bill to which I wish to direct attention. The Bill is in two parts. The first part alters the qualification of the Chief Registrar, and as it is the first time I have heard of the proposal, I do not look upon it as an agreed matter, but I am not going to say anything about it at the moment. Between now and the Committee stage, however, I intend to make inquiries as to that point. The present qualification is that the person holding the office must be a barrister of 12 years' standing. The Bill abolishes that qualification and throws the appointment open to others who may be, no doubt, qualified for the work, but I will not deal with that matter just now. As regards the second part of the Bill, undoubtedly it is an agreed Measure—or rather the intention is one on which there has been agreement. The original Friendly Societies Act gave power to insure children under 10 years up to a sum of £10. That right was applied to the industrial assurance companies by the Act of 1896 and the result was that the industrial assurance companies or friendly societies
could not insure a child for move than £10.
That provision continued in force until 1923, when a Measure, dealing only with industrial assurance companies, came before the House and an Amendment was accepted late in the evening extending the insurance of children up to a sum of £15. That did not touch the friendly societies and, undoubtedly, it was then agreed that a Bill should be brought forward to put the friendly societies on the same footing as the industrial assurance companies and that was all that was intended. This Bill, however, is a most extraordinary example of bad drafting. Every Parliamentary draftsman loves to legislate by reference. I have appealed against it time after time, though I suppose it is almost useless to do so. This Bill will have to be understood by laymen and used every day by laymen in all parts of the country, just as the Act of 1923, which was a consolidating Act, is being used every day and has to be understood by every person using it. Section 4, Sub-section (1) of that Act makes perfectly plain what an industrial assurance company can do, namely, insure, a child up to £15. This Bill now comes along and repeals that provision of the Act of 1923. The Act of 1923 had in turn repealed the Act of 1896, but the Act of 1896 was the only thing which applied the Friendly Societies Act to the industrial assurance companies. Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1923 set out quite, fully what was to be done, and it said:
The provisions of Sections sixty-two and sixty-four to sixty-seven of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, relating to payments on the death of children, shall extend to industrial assurance companies.
I do not think much of the drafting of that provision itself and I said so at the time, but still it was something which a layman could understand, even though with some difficulty. Now this Bill comes along and repeals it. Therefore, you have this position, that there is nothing which applies the Friendly Societies Act to the industrial assurance companies at all, and the only way in which you try to do it is by Clause 2 of this Bill which says:
Section sixty-two of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (which relates to assurances on children), both as originally enacted and as applied to trade unions and industrial assurance companies, shall have
effect as if for that Section the following Section were substituted.
But it is no longer applied to the industrial assurance companies, because the Act of 1923 had repealed the Act of 1896, and by this Bill you are repealing the Section which affected them in 1923. I resent this, because as lately as 1923 you had a code which everybody could use. I hope I have made my point clear. It is that the original Friendly Societies Act said that you shall not insure for more than £10; the Act of 1896 applied that Act to industrial companies; the Act of 1923 repealed the 1896 Act; and, having repealed it, substituted Section 4, Subsection (1) of that Act. This Bill, admittedly intended to put both people on the same footing, repeals that Section 4, Sub-section (1), and under Clause 2 refers to Section 62 of the Act of 1896 as applied to industrial insurance companies. As I said before, the Act of 1896, which was the Act which applied to insurance companies, was repealed in 1923, and, therefore, the obvious intention of my hon. Friend and myself has not been effected by this Bill.
I think I am right, but, even if I am not, I hope the hon. Gentleman will redraft the Bill in such a way as not to revoke the code drawn up in 1923, because of the extreme inconvenience caused to ordinary people when they find that the Section on which they have been working is repealed, and have then the trouble of looking up some other Act, in a library or elsewhere. There is nothing more important, in drafting Acts of Parliament, than to make them easy for the practitioner and easy for the layman to use. More harm is done by mistakes in such points as these than is perhaps credited, and I ask an assurance from the Government that not only will they see that the intention is properly carried out, but that the form of the Bill shall be altered, and that we shall be able to keep the Act of 1923, as it is now, the code which is being used throughout the length and breadth of the land. The difficulties which have arisen under it are rather large, but, whatever they are, it is being used by everybody.

Mr. PALMER: Up to the time of the 1923 Act, a friendly society and a company came to a very large extent under two separate forms of legislation. Nothing
has done more to bring friendly societies—and, of course, that term embraces trade unions as well—into line with proprietary insurance companies than the 1923 Act has done, and, as has already been pointed out, the purpose of this Bill is again to bring the friendly societies into conformity with that Act. The companies have, since that enactment, been practising this extended scale and are issuing policies under it, whereas the friendly societies have been prevented from doing so until this legislation has been amended. Moreover, I want to remind the House that this Amendment to extend the scale, to allow a larger scope for insurances on the lives of children, was not a case put up by the insurance agents or, indeed, by the insurance companies or the insurance friendly societies It was rather a case that was put up in this House, and I would remind hon. Members that the proposed Amendment to extend the sum from £10 to £15 was put up in this House, I think, as late as on the Report stage. I wish to submit that, since this House has determined this scale, and by far the larger portion of the concerns transacting industrial assurance are already operating, the least the House can do is to enable all concerned to come into uniformity.
No one deprecates legislation by reference more than do insurance men themselves, and it is becoming increasingly difficult year by year for us to keep pace with these Acts, but I see in the 1923 Act a real attempt to bring the big friendly societies and the insurance companies into a degree of uniformity. At least, this much obtains, that we come under one Commissioner to-day, whereas formerly part of the business came under the Board of Trade and another part under the Registrar of Friendly Societies. I hope, as the thing develops, that experience will lead to more uniformity, which in turn will enable us, perhaps, to make the law clearer and proof against any mal-administration, which was largely the purpose of the 1923 Act. I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. GRAHAM: I think, speaking offhand and without full inquiry into the undoubted difficulties of legislation by reference, that the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) is probably wrong in the point he made, in
that all that we seek to do here is to repeal part of Section 4, Sub-section (1). That is all that is done, and the operative part of that Section remains. Therefore, I think there will be no difficulty on the point he has raised. However, I undertake during the Committee stage to clear up any point that has not been made plain to-night.

Mr. RAWLINSON: My point is, that Clause 2, as it is drawn, does not touch that power, because the Friendly Societies Act no longer applies to industrial insurance companies. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Snowden.]

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Trevelyan.]

Mr. RAWLINSON: I have already made two speeches on this Bill, but I wish to add two words, one of explanation and one of protest. The first is that, in opposing this Bill as I did on the Second Reading, and again in suggesting in Committee upstairs that it should be deferred, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that in nothing that I said was meant a reflection on him personally. Without saying anything derogatory to my own side, I have more hope of getting good from the present Government, I am afraid, than I had from the past, because it was the Coalition Government that made the glaring mistake of 1918 that we are seeking to amend. As we are going to give the right hon. Gentleman two years more in which to turn round, I hope he really will go into this matter and try his best this year to get at what, I admit, is a very difficult matter to solve, and that is to attempt to deal with the Emmott Report, which is blessed on every side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), who was on the Emmott Committee, was unable to be upstairs in Committee on this Bill, and I know he
has very strong views on this point, so that it is not only on this side of the House that we are anxious to get the matter through. If we have an Autumn Session, which we are all hoping to have, I think the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of introducing a Bill, so that we might get well on with what is a matter of vital importance, both to the teachers and to the cause of education generally.

Mr. RATHBONE: I was not able to be present at the meeting of the Committee upstairs, but I should like to join with others who were there in asking that this Bill should be for only one year. I entirely agree with all the reasons that have been given, and I have my own wish that the funding of the teachers' contribution should be taken in hand as soon as possible. I trust that as the Departmental Report has now been in the hands of the Government the President of the Board of Education may find it possible to bring in a Bill dealing with that matter next year. I venture to press that question because I think it is most important for the teachers themselves and for the best interests of the profession.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I am sure that Members in all parts of the House agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), and with the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Rathbone) with regard to the importance of this matter. I should have been very happy if it had been possible for the President of the Board of Education to be content with an extension of the existing Act for one year only. Although I was unable, like the hon. Member for Wavertree, to be present at the meeting of the Committee, I informed myself of what had passed there, and observed that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, in the course of the Committee discussions, gave a very important and specific undertaking to the Committee, and through the Committee to the House, that he would lose no time in taking the necessary steps to bring in a Bill for a permanent scheme. I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House were glad to hear that, because the question with which the Emmott Report and this Bill is concerned is one of really very great importance to the whole teaching profession, and to the whole service of education. Hon. Members will
recognise that when the Bill is produced, it will inevitably be very technical, very complicated, and difficult. The hon. Member for Wavertree, who speaks with exceptional knowledge of his subject, has, I have no doubt, very clear and decided views with regard to the technical questions of the teachers' contributions and the manner in which they should be dealt with. I do not seek at this stage to anticipate those discussions, but one scarcely needs to be a prophet to realise that when those discussions are drafted into practical form by means of a Parliamentary Bill, they will need very careful examination by this House. There may very well be more than one opinion in regard to many of the provisions that such a Measure will contain.
The House generally will recognise also, that the question which my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) has, perhaps, largely in his mind, and for which in times past he has been able to speak with authority, namely, the position of independent schools in relation to any scheme of this kind, is also one that will claim its full share of attention. None of those matters need be discussed at this stage. I only mention them for the purpose of saying that we cannot fairly grudge the President of the Board of Education reasonable opportunity for informing himself upon and examining into all these questions, with a view to arriving at conclusions which will command general consent. All hon. Members who have concerned themselves with education, and with education where it touches local authorities and teachers in points of administration, are aware of the very intimate connection between salaries and superannuation schemes. I only wish to emphasise once again the extreme desirability of doing everything we can to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding in the minds of the teaching profession as to relation between salaries and superannuation contribution, such as we have known in the last three years. It is, indeed, on the ground that I hope that by the time the right hon. Gentleman brings forward his Bill for superannuation the question of teachers' salaries will have been settled to the mutual satisfaction of the three parties concerned, namely, the State, the authorities and the teachers, that I think the House is wise to accede to his desire for a further opportunity of giving the
matter full consideration. I hope he may be able to utilise the intervening time that lies between now and when he brings forward his Bill for the purpose of securing as complete an agreement as may be, and a settlement between all the different interests involved. It will be neither an easy nor an enviable task. Indeed, while I feel disposed, sometimes, to envy the right hon. Gentleman his present office, which is—if I may humbly say so—one of the most interesting and important in the State, that envy is tempered with a certain feeling of relief that I have not the responsibility of dealing I with these technical and difficult problems. I can assure him, on behalf of all those with whom I act, that he has our good wishes in his task of arriving at an agreement between all the interests concerned on a matter that, as has been most truly said, goes very deep in its effect on the efficiency of our national system of education.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): My right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) has expressed so well and accurately my position, that it is almost unnecessary for me to say anything; but I think I owe him and the House a repetition of the assurance which I gave to the Committee, that this Bill is not brought forward by me for the purpose of delaying a settlement. It is quite true that, under the Bill as it stands, another period of something like two years might elapse before legislation may be brought in, but it is my genuine hope to be able to bring in the larger Bill long before the conclusion of the two years, and to get a permanent measure in operation. My real object in desiring the lengthened time inserted in this Bill, however, is to make it quite certain that this House next year will not have to repeat a Bill like this, but that I may be able to bring in the larger Measure without any undue hurry, for as my right hon. Friend has just said, whatever its merits may be, it will be a technical and complicated Bill, which this House ought not to hurry over, and should have plenty of time to consider. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the Third Reading with the assurance that I am not going to delay any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MARRIAGES VALIDITY (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL [Lords].

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I might be allowed to explain that prior to 1905, when it was found that an error had been made in solemnising the marriage of any party, it was customary, I understand, to correct that technical error by passing an Act of Parliament in each case. In 1905 however, it was found expedient to pass a Measure so that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs might issue Orders to make such marriages valid. For 18 years these Orders were issued without complaint, but the right hon. Gentleman who was Home Secretary in the last Administration found himself in a difficulty when a Member of the other place pointed out that the Act of 1905 did not provide for the last two paragraphs that appeared in the Orders. It was found necessary, therefore, to introduce in the other place this short Bill, which is merely a technical matter, in order that when the Order of the Secretary of State is issued it shall cover every relative point in connection with the solemnisation of marriages where an error has been made. The Order that will be issued in future will lie on the Table of the House in the same way as the Orders issued hitherto have done. All we are trying to do now is to bring the Orders issued by the Home Secretary into line with the law as intended by the provisions of the Act of 1905.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I did not realise that a Bill of this nature was going to be brought on to-night. I have given the best attention to the explanation of the hon. Member and, frankly, I have some difficulty in understanding him. The validity of marriages is always a difficult question, and it is rather a pity to let the Bill go through without anybody in the House understanding it. As very considerable progress has been made with the other Bill to-night, I submit to the Government that it will be better if the Bill were brought up on some other occasion and explained by somebody who understands more about it.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [29th April].

Order read for Consideration of Fifth and Subsequent Resolutions.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

5. "That—

(a) As from the second day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, Entertainments Duty shall cease to be charged on payments for admission to an entertainment where the amount of the payment for admission does not exceed sixpence, and where the amount of the payment for admission, excluding the amount of the duty, exceeds sixpence and does not exceed one shilling and three-pence, the duty shall be charged at the following reduced rates, that is to say:


Where the payment



Exceeds 6d. and does not exceed 7d.
one penny.


Exceeds 7d. and does not exceed 8d.
three halfpence.


Exceeds 8d. and does not exceed 1s. 1d.
twopence.


Exceeds 1s. 1d. and does not exceed 1s. 3d.
threepence.

(b) Where a person who has made a payment for admission to an (entertainment subsequently on being admitted to another part of the place of entertainment makes a further payment of admission in respect of the same entertainment there shall for the purposes of Entertainments Duty be deemed to have been one payment of an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the several payments.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

CONTINUATION OF ADDITIONAL MEDICINE DUTIES (EXCISE).

6. "That the additional duties of excise on medicines imposed by Section eleven of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and continued by Section seven of the Finance Act, 1923, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, shall continue to be charged as from that date until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

CONTINUATION OF NEW IMPORT DUTIES.

7. "That the new import duties which were imposed by Part I of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and continued by Section six of the Finance Act, 1923, until the first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, shall continue to be charged as from that date until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. 1913."

INCOME TAX.

CHARGE OF INCOME TAX.

8. "That—

(a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, at the rate of four shillings and sixpence in the pound, and the same Super-tax shall be charged for that year as was charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three; and
(b) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedules A and B for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, shall be taken as the annual value of that property for the same purpose for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four;

Provided that the foregoing provision relating to annual value shall not apply to lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the administrative county of London with respect to which the valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for the purposes of Income Tax; and

(c) The like provisions shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax and Super-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, as had effect with respect thereto for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, other than Sections twenty, twenty-two, twenty-seven, and thirty-one of the Finance Act, 1923.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

INCOME TAX ON WAR BONUS, ETC.

9. "That for the purposes of any assessment to Income Tax for any year which is made on or after, or has not become final and conclusive before, the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, or of any deduction on account of Income Tax for any year, any increase of or addition to any salary, remuneration, pension, annuity, or stipend by way of war bonus, and any other like temporary increase or addition granted in order to meet the rise in the cost of living, shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, chargeable to tax as salary, remuneration, pension, annuity, or stipend, as the case may be, and not as perquisites.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

RATE OF INCOME TAX TO BE REPAID IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE UNDER PART II OF FINANCE ACT, 1920.

10. "That any repayment of Income Tax for any year of assessment, whether ending before or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, to which any person may be entitled in respect of any deduction allowed for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of his taxable income or in respect of the reduction of the rate of tax on the first two hundred and twenty-five pounds of his taxable income, shall be made at the standard rate of tax for that year, or at half that rate, as the case may be, but subject to such adjustments as may be proper in cases where relief is given in respect of Dominion Income Tax:

Provided that, in the case of any person who proves that by reason of the deductions to which he is entitled he has no taxable income for any year, any repayment to be made shall be a repayment of the whole amount of the tax paid by him, whether by deduction or otherwise, in respect of his income for that year.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

Fifth Resolution read a Second time.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the words "second day of June," and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of October."
In moving this Amendment, I can claim to hurt nobody's feelings; in fact, my apparent nervousness is because I may be looked upon as a public benefactor. All I propose to do is to continue the tax until the 1st October next, and then abolish it. If my pro-
posal be accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I claim, in the first place, the Government will this year get all the money they want, all the money that is budgeted for. The Government will have the benefit of the tax on the forthcoming Test Matches, the receipts of the Wembley Exhibition, the influx of visitors from abroad who will naturally patronise the many entertainments in London and the Provinces, and, I am informed, we shall also have a good deal of racing in the next few months. In the next place, the entertainment industry will get what it wants—namely, abolition, and I am sure it will be quite content to carry on at the present rate of taxation, providing it can get a definite promise of abolition during the last six months of the financial year. My Amendment, therefore, benefits everybody, and not merely, as the Government proposes, the very cheapest cinemas. In the third place, I hurt the feelings of no political party, since who can say which party will be in power to introduce the next Budget? In the fourth place, I recommend the step on the ground of mere justice. In the fifth place—and this is important—I enable the rank and file of my friends of the Labour party to carry out their promise. Indeed, I do more: I enable them to carry out their written pledges—written not once, but several times. The House will remember it was a source of constant criticism by the Labour party that the last Government would not abolish the tax, and would not even accept the graduated scale of taxation which I then proposed. The objections made then by the Labour party must be just as strong to-day. Last year they even stampeded a meeting upstairs in a committee room called to approve a scale. Their cry then was, Abolition, Abolition, and nothing but Abolition. I do not think for a moment they have changed their minds, but I would like to quote two extracts from prominent Labour Members' speeches on this very subject when I introduced my scale last year. The hon. and gallant Member for S.E. Leeds (Captain O'Grady) said:
We on these benches favour total abolition of the tax. We agreed during the General Election that in our judgment this is a particularly vicious tax.
Then the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) said:
I have given my pledge to my constituents that I would move as far as I could, not for a remission of the tax, but for its abolition, and as far as one Member of Parliament can go, I am going to continue fighting for the abolition of this tax.
I admire that attitude, and I hope they will put it into practice.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Why did you not support us last year?

Sir W. de FRECE: I will come to that later. Their argument is just as reasonable to-day, and I hope they will carry it out. I am anxious to see how many Members of the Labour party are prepared to vote against the Government in their proposals, which, admittedly, are of the most miserable kind. Finally, I do away with a War tax, which, to my mind, and I am sure to the minds of other hon. Members, has nothing to recommend it. It is a source of surprise to me to hear sometimes, even from Members on this side of the House, that the entertainment business has no claim to be called a great industry. May I emphasise, the fact that in addition to the thousands of actors, actresses and musicians employed by this industry, it also gives constant and remunerative employment to painters, carpenters, stage-hands, electricians, printers, bill-posters, advertisers and others too numerous to mention. Again, there are many people who claim that entertainment is a luxury. I notice the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), who, I am sorry, is not now in the House, said in a speech quite recently:
He was less pleased with the changes in the Entertainment Tax. After all, taxes there must be, and attendance at entertainments, whether in cinemas or on the football field, was a luxury, if any expenditure was a luxury. If they were not to tax food, or the necessities of life, or if they reduced these taxes to the lowest possible limit, surely it was a little unwise to impinge on a source of revenue where no one could say that a man who could not afford to pay was asked for a penny.
I have yet to learn that the House has accepted the principle of luxury taxation. I understand a Select Committee rejected the principle. Does the right hon. Member for West Birmingham agree that luxuries should be taxed? Did he ever buy an orchid, or go into a jeweller's shop, or patronise the West End shops? I think it is time we did away with this
foolish talk about luxuries. When there is a war or social disturbance, do the Government then talk about entertainment as a luxury? No. From my personal experience, they ask us to carry on at all costs. What is a luxury? Does one consider it a luxury to encourage dramatic art? To hear Shakespeare? To listen to the great musicians? To promote a Wembley Exhibition, to interest children in the life of the world and nature? Surely to talk about luxuries in this connection is foolish! The hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) enunciates a code of life that would make us cabbages. I hope the Members of the Labour party do not propose to join the hon. Member for West Birmingham, and to take an attitude which reminds one of the lines:
Compound for sins they are inclined to,
By damning those they have no mind to.
I have only dealt with remarks of the right hon. Gentleman because there are some who consider that entertainments and diversions are luxuries. If that is so, why do doctors recommend them? Why do the teachers encourage them? Why do any of us try to encourage them in an educational sense? There are many hundreds of thousands of workers affected by this tax. I do not want to go over the whole ground again, but if we are to penalise men who labour in the so-called luxury industries, well, surely, we ought to tax those who work in Birmingham cheap jewellery and things of that sort, for they only labour for what might be termed the physical side. Entertainments as an industry cater for the moral and educational side of life.
In previous years I have only advocated a reduced scale. I did so from the point of view of finance, which, for the moment, I did not think justified any other course, but with our large surplus now, I claim we ought to abolish the tax altogether. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is sympathetic, because he once said as much, and the late Prime Minister said that this tax ought to be the first to be dealt with as soon as the Government had sufficient money at its disposal. I go further and say we might well postpone some remission of pre-War taxation, and wipe this taxation out altogether at the present time. I am in favour of increasing employment by abolishing this
tax. You will give employment to thousands more in an industry which is already very sorely tried by summer-time, by broadcasting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, it is a fact. From the public standpoint, I would say that the public will get the money from this tax back again in better seats and cheaper seats. They will get it back, but they will not get it back from the Government.
The present suggestion is a miserable concession on the part of the Government. It will not assist anybody. I am in favour of returning this concession to the public. If there is a concession made, let it go direct to the public. I would impress upon hon. Members that you can only do that by declining to penalise the higher priced seats which alone make cheaper seats possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the other way about!"] No, the hon. Member is wrong. I do not know what his experience is, but from my experience of 30 years, the proposal is one that will subsidise outdoor entertainments at the expense of inside entertainments, and I will tell him why. The ordinary charge for an outdoor sports meeting at one time was 6d. When the tax was put on there was imposed another 2d., making 8d. The charge was made 1s., because it was impossible for the money-takers to deal with thousands of people, and to give them 4d. change out of 1s. Now the position is even worse, because I notice that in one part of the tax is speaks about 1½d. being added to the price of admission.
Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever stood at a theatre or a music hall where the house has to be filled 10 minutes before the starting time? In such a case it is absolutely impossible for any money-taker to give change for the fraction of a penny out of a shilling. Much as I agree with outdoor sports, they have no relation to the encouragement or the promotion of dramatic art or musical art. My proposal means that the Government will get the money they want and everybody will be satisfied. If we can get abolition, hon. Members will be able to honour their pledges. Last, but not least, the public will benefit. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor will accept what I have put forward, for I fail to see why he should not.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the House will agree that this is a thoroughly unsound tax, and one which was never intended should be maintained. Unlike my hon. Friend who has proposed the Amendment, I have hitherto not put down any Amendment on the Paper to the Entertainments Duty, not because, hon. Members know, I am not very much interested in the entertainment industry, but because I always took the view that whilst this was an extremely unfair tax, there were other taxes that pressed much more heavily upon the community, and which should first be remitted. I have been accounted somewhat of a blackleg in the profession to which I belong, and as is known in my constituency, last election I had others advocating—unsuccessfully, I am glad to say—my opponent's cause. The position to-day is very different. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to the House and has frankly stated, "I feel that I can afford a remission of £3,400,000 this year and £4,000,000 in subsequent years." Upon examination of his proposals I have definitely—and speaking with due modesty, I hope, and a great deal of experience—come to the conclusion that what he proposes will do far more harm than good and injure the amusements industry in this country.
Secondly, it will not benefit the consumer except in a very minor degree. Thirdly, and lastly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose £4,000,000 in a full year through that course being taken. I felt compelled to put down an Amendment which substantially is the same as that of my hon. Friend. Hence I support his Amendment. The entertainment industry is undoubtedly at the present time subsidising the cheaper seats in all places of amusement. It would be impossible for any indoor amusement industry to be carried on without they had higher-priced seats which pay, in fact, for some portion of the upkeep of the cheaper-priced seats. What is going to happen? What will happen from the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it is accepted by this House, is that in fact the scale is again going to subsidise the cheaper-priced seats at the expense of the higher-priced ones, and it will mean that cinemas will be at a still greater advantage than at the present time over the rest of the entertainment people.
I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anxious by this Bud-
get to put as many people out of employment as he can, but I do say to him deliberately that what he is now proposing to do is further to subsidise the cinema which employs the minimum amount of labour, and which buys the things it sells principally from America and foreign countries, and, therefore adversely affects the exchange, and is competing with the theatre and music hall which employs the maximum number of people in the entertainment industry. May I just give a concrete example? The cinema will employ perhaps two people on the stage, a very small orchestra, or pianola, or some mechanical instrument for its orchestra. It will buy the goods it is selling principally from America or from the Continent. Its expenses in comparison with the theatre or the music hall are very much less. If you take a music hall or a theatre what do they do? They have a large staff on the stage, one for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer professes to be anxious to find work, and they are drawn very largely from unskilled labour. They will employ 20, 30 or even more people on the stage. They will employ in the orchestra anything from 10 to 20 people. They will employ on the stage itself a very large number of actors and actresses, supers, and people drawn from the unemployed, and lastly, they will spend varying amounts and sometimes very considerable sums in the productions they present to their audience. All that radiates through a large number of trades, and if you are going to subsidise the cheaper priced seats you are going to make it more difficult for the music halls and theatres to compete with the cinemas, and you will force them to lower the standard of their entertainment and cheapen their cost in order to compete with these other people.
Is the explanation of this proposal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is out for catching the votes of the cinema patrons? I am extremely sorry to introduce any note regarding vote catching into this discussion, but I deplore the fact that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not this in mind, at all events that is the interpretation put upon it by the cinema industry. I would like to refer to a letter which I have received as a Member of the House of Commons, and it is written by Mr. J. V. Bryson, the managing director of the Jewel
Productions European Motor Picture Company, Limited. Among the directors I find on the notepaper there are three Americans, and the managing director is an American. I do not want to read the whole of the letter, but it was written on the 14th April, and the managing director says:
To-day, authentic assurance has reached me that the theatre admission tax will soon be greatly reduced by, and at the expense of, the British Government.

Mr. SNOWDEN: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will reply to this Amendment, but I should like to state at this stage that the hon. Member is apparently not aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) raised this very question, and I stated in reply that there was no foundation whatever for the statement which has just been made.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the man who signed that letter has apologised for using the letter, because the person who gave him the information had no authority to speak on the subject, and carries no weight in the industry?

Sir A. BUTT: I was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had denied all knowledge of this letter, but that does not alter the point I was endeavouring to make, which is that while I do not accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of having had any knowledge of this letter, it clearly shows what was the idea of the cinema proprietors in this country, and that is why I want to quote the letter. I am quite prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there was no authority for it. Here is the quotation—
What are we going to do to show our appreciation of the actions of those men who have answered our plea for the reduced tax?
Those men who answered that plea are obviously the Labour Government. In this case they did a very laudable thing. They sent round to these 4,000 cinema people and asked them to advertise the Wembley Exhibition. While these 4,000 people are advertising that exhibition there is no reason to suppose that in future they will not advertise those who subsidise them against British labour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks
that in reducing the tax by the scale he has adopted that he is going to benefit the consumer. Does he imagine that for one moment the seats that are now being sold at 3d. inclusive of tax, that is 2½d. for the proprietor and ½d. for the tax, will in future be sold at 2½d.? Because if he does, I can assure him that he is labouring under a great misapprehension because the consumer will not get the slightest benefit, and the ½d. will go into the pockets of the proprietors.
Let me give him a concrete case. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that when this tax is reduced under the scale that the present admission to Football League matches will be 11d.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] At the present moment what happens in practice is that the football organisers take 9d., the Chancellor gets 3d., and the 40,000 patrons who pay admission to a successful football match pay 1s. each. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those 40,000 people are going to pay 11d. in the future and get 1d. change? Does he think that is at all practical in working? I assure him that it is not practical, and I may tell him that I am perfectly convinced that what will happen will be that the football promoters will take 10d. and he will get 2d., and the consumer will get no benefit. Are operas, concerts and entertainments of that kind not to be considered, because they are very seriously handicapped at the present moment? What is proposed now will handicap them further. It has been said that this is a luxury industry. I do not know whether it is or not; I am not going to give an opinion on that; but, if I wanted to appeal to the sentiment and gain the sympathy of the Committee, I should tell them of an experience I had in 1917 when Sir George Cave was Home Secretary.
At that time we were having constant air raids, and the theatres were virtually empty. I went to see Sir George Cave about the very precarious condition of the theatres and music halls in this country, and he expressed to me, on behalf of the Government of the day, the desire that they should carry on. I make no boast about this, but I went back to a meeting of theatrical managers, and, without hesitation, they all said they were most anxious to carry on. They did carry on, and they lost many thousands of pounds; and I may say they have never recovered from that, because—and this is a point
that I should like hon. Members seriously to consider—they cannot sell to-morrow the goods that they do not sell to-day. If tea or sugar is taxed, and the shopkeeper or merchant cannot sell his goods to-day, he can always hope to sell them tomorrow; but the unoccupied seats in a place of entertainment that are not sold to-night are lost for ever. Therefore, I say there is a great case for a concession to the West End theatres, and the higher class form of entertainment in this country. Let me mention to the Chancellor of Exchequer a great example, namely, promenade concerts. They have a great uplifting effect upon the community, which I hope he will be able to realise. In the worst of us there is some good. Does he know that last year, in London alone, the Chappell Concerts paid £40,000 in tax, and lost a very large sum of money? I am not one of those who believe that, if the tax is abolished altogether, it will mean that an industry which is so hard hit is going to become prosperous immediately; but I do say that the psychological effect of giving something to everyone will be very beneficial to the industry.
An hon. Member opposite says, "Vote-catching." I have been fearless from the first over this. I have had the courage to say that I preferred taking the taxes off sugar and tea, and I have refused to join any association or league for the abolition of this tax. I have consistently said that other things were more urgent. I am only urging this on the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year because he has deliberately set aside £4,000,000 for the purpose of doing what the hon. Member behind him calls vote-catching, and I say that it is extremely unfair and a great injustice to the industry, and that it means subsidising the foreigner at the expense of the Britisher. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very firm on giving this abolition up to 6d. I have no doubt, from what I have heard, that he is perfectly prepared to say that the scale can be altered, but, as far as I can gather from the figures, £8,000,000 is collected up to 2s., and it is not unreasonable to assume that the largest proportion of that comes upon the seats up to 1s. 3d. If, therefore, we assume that £4,000,000 is the figure up to 1s. 3d., I am inclined to think that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists upon
abolishing the tax up to 6d., there will be very little left over to divide, and I do hope that he will not add insult to injury by offering us on this occasion what is left after the tax up to 6d. is taken away from the £4,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself—I hope I am not unfairly paraphrasing what he has said—has said that this was a mean tax. All I can say is that what he proposes to do now is a much meaner action.
Last year, when tea and sugar had not been relieved, there were no less than 124 Members of the party opposite who pledged themselves to the abolition of this tax. Hon. Members below the Gangway pledged themselves, and many hon. Members on this side. If we on this side are to be reminded of our pledges—and, I think, it is very proper that we should be—I make no excuse for reminding hon. Members opposite of their pledges. I have taken the trouble to ascertain how the present Government voted last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself supported total abolition. The Financial Secretary supported total abolition. The Prime Minister supported total abolition. The Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for War, and the Colonial Secretary supported total abolition. These Gentlemen have all been to their constituencies, and have won a very large number of votes, because they had not the courage to say what I said, namely, that I would not give any unqualified pledge. I am anxious to know what they are going to do on this occasion. I am perfectly satisfied, speaking with an intimate knowledge of the indoor amusement industry, that, if the Chancellor cannot see his way to take the tax off equally throughout the scale, as, for instance, by an all-round 10 per cent. flat-rate on the receipts, which would not absorb £4,000,000, it would be very much better to keep the tax on in its entirety this year, and, if he has £4,000,000 to spare, let us have universal penny postage, which, at all events, would be an advantage to the whole community and not only to one class.

Mr. PATRICK COLLINS: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his proposal with regard to this tax. This tax bears very hardly upon working people. To-day, if a person takes a 6d. seat, he has to pay 2d. in tax. If he takes a 2d. seat, he has to pay ½d., or,
if he takes a 5d. seat, he has to pay 1d. This tax has crushed the small cinema proprietors and the poor showmen of England. Throughout all parts of England we take our entertainments to the countryside, and we give the masses innocent amusement. They cannot afford to pay this tax, and I again congratulate the Chancellor on what he has done. It is all very well for the luxurious theatres to play the part of the dog in the manger, because they have not got what they wanted. I myself would like to see the whole of the tax abolished, but we are thankful for small mercies. Last year also I spoke on this subject of the abolition of the tax on the cheaper seats, and I am glad that it has now come to pass. Three parts of the small cinemas throughout England are in a very bad way. Some are bankrupt, some have closed down, and others are on the verge of bankruptcy. This is a big windfall for those who go to the cinemas, and who cannot afford to give this 2d. When the father of a family takes six people to the cinema there is 2d. tax for each of them. Wages are so low that they cannot go. Reference has been made to the luxury tax on cinemas and football Football is a national game, surely. Where are people to go if they do not go to cinemas and football? I suppose they are to be put in a pen and kept there. Over £10,000,000 are invested in our industry. The showmen of this country cater for the poorer classes. They have amusement brought to their very door. They cannot go to Blackpool or to the Continent or to the Riviera. They have not got the money. I pray of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to take notice of hon. Members opposite. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece). He has been one of our great showmen. He wishes to put the clock back. He says, "Wait till next October." I do not think for a moment that he means to put a stop to small bazaars and little cricket matches. I should like to see the tax abolished, but we are thankful for small mercies. Next year the right hon. Gentleman may be able to abolish it, but for the present I can say, speaking for all the showmen who cater for the masses, that we are thankful for what he has done.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have spoken on this question of the Entertainments Duty
since I took any part in Budget discussions. I have always advocated its abolition and I still advocate it. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece) made a quotation from a speech I made last year and also made reference to a certain attitude which was taken up by hon. Members who sit upon these benches now, but last year were sitting across the Floor when the hon. Member was sitting upon the benches below the Gangway. My views with regard to this tax are as strong to-day as they were last year. That does not mean, however, that I am going to support his Amendment. I have been sufficiently long in this House to know the little tricks that are played when a party is in Opposition and when it is in power. The moving spirits of the meeting upstairs last year were men who were in his own political camp—the man who took the chair at that meeting, the men who had organised it, the men who took the principal part in the discussion—and we all know what happened in the evening. While at that meeting they pledged themselves religiously and seriously, with a fanaticism which was almost characteristic of the old Crusader days, when they came down into the Chamber and the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that any member of his party who walked into the Lobby against his proposals would be violating party loyalty, everyone of them voted with the Government.

Sir W. de FRECE: Does that statement refer to myself?

Mr. MACLEAN: I understand that the hon. Gentleman voted against the abolition of the tax.

Sir W. de FRECE: I did not vote at all.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. MACLEAN: There are only two lobbies in the House and if an hon. Member does not express himself in one or the other, if he is not absent through ill-health or for business reasons, if he is in the Chamber and does not take the trouble to vote, his constituents and those associated with him must place some construction on his refusal to go into the Lobby.

Sir W. de FRECE: I explained last year that I was not in favour of total abolition.

Mr. MACLEAN: But the hon. Member did not vote against total abolition. He
had an Amendment asking for a revised scale of roughly 12½ per cent. upon all seats. He had not the approval of the whole of the entertainments industry in moving that Amendment. He has not the approval of the entertainments industry in moving his present Amendment.

Sir W. de FRECE: I agree.

Mr. MACLEAN: This is not a matter on which the entertainments industry is finding fault with the Chancellor's proposal, but it is one which a few West End managers who have only a very few cheap scats are refusing to accept.

Sir A. BUTT: That is not a true statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell you differently from that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Member should know that he must not rise if the hon. Member does not give way.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not want to misrepresent the position of the hon. Gentleman or of the West End managers. In many of the West End theatres the gallery seats are few in number in comparison with the other parts of the house and, consequently, a reduction in the cheaper seats is not going to be so beneficial to them as a reduction in the higher priced seats. That goes without any argument whatever, and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne admits my point. Then why are they objecting? Why are they asking that the Entertainments Duty should be continued until October of this year? Are they not aware that the concession which has been made by the Government will come into operation during the summer-time, when we hope for the ordinary good weather? Hope springs eternal in the human breast. The remission upon the cheaper seats is going to benefit cinema theatres, which appeal to the majority of the people who go to entertainments.

Sir W. de FRECE: indicated dissent.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are those of us who are in favour of the total abolition of the duty to refuse the concession because 30 or 40 theatres in the West End are not going to have a revision? Is every cinema house and every cheap theatre in the United Kingdom to be penalised because 30 or 40 theatres in one part of London, the West End, are not going to reap any
great benefit from it? That is what one would call cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The industry is to have no concession or to reap any advantage and the public are to have no advantage, simply because 30 or 40 theatres in London are not reaping any advantage. It is one of the most absurd proposals that has ever come from the representative of an industry in this House. One point which was made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, supported by the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt), was that the public would derive no benefit from this remission. Upon whose authority do they make that statement?

Sir A. BUTT: I said that, to a large extent, the consumers were not going to benefit. My authority is the very large number of people with whom I associate throughout the industry, and not, as the hon. Member suggests, a limited number of 40 West End theatres, but people in the provinces, where I have interests quite as much as in London.

Mr. MACLEAN: Those of us who are not interested in the entertainment industry have an opportunity of coming into touch with managers and proprietors, and I can say, without any fear of challenge from the other side, that, as far as the cheaper-priced cinemas in Glasgow are concerned, the concession which is being given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be handed to the people by reducing the prices of the seats. Therefore, I am certain that as this is not limited to Glasgow, the same concession will be handed to the public throughout the United Kingdom by the majority of managers and proprietors of cinemas. That disposes of the idea that is being circulated by the hon. Members opposite that this concession will merely be something that will remain in the hands of the cinema proprietors as enhanced profit.
I am still in favour of the total abolition of the duty, and I hope we shall see the total abolition in the next Budget. If I did not think so, I would support the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne in seeking total abolition now, or at some date this year. But I do not believe that his Amendment will carry out the purpose that he has in view, and to which we have converted him this year. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer must give a concession to the extent of the money that he has to spare. My reason for insisting upon abolition all along was, that it was a bad tax, and that the Governments in the past had money with which they could have conceded the total abolition of the tax. They had ample money in their hands, and they could have given a concession to the cinema industry or to the entertainment industry as a whole during the last five years, but they did not do so. Concessions were given to other interests. While a concession, affecting a large proportion of workers, was withheld, concessions were given to industries that could very well have done with fewer concessions, or a lesser amount I am hoping that the £3,300,000 concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving to the industry on this occasion, or £4,000,000 in a full year, will next year, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeds in his Budget, be followed by the abolition of the tax.
My main reason for not supporting the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who has spread his trap in order to try to collect into it all those who are in favour of total abolition, is that the cinema industry, the C.E.A., is prepared to accept the concession that is being granted this year. They hoped that it would have been greater, but they are thankful for small mercies and are hoping that next year there will be greater mercy and that the tax will be abolished altogether. The point is that this year the industry are prepared to accept the concession.

Sir W. de FRECE: indicated dissent.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne shakes his head. He knows that they are accepting it.

Sir W. de FRECE: The cinema industry.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is what I said.

Sir W. de FRECE: You said the industry.

Mr. MACLEAN: I said the cinema industry. If you take the theatres in the United Kingdom and the cinemas and calculate the number of employés of all kinds, it will be found that there is a
greater number of employés engaged in the cinema industry than in the theatres

Sir A. BUTT: Nothing like it.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is rather remarkable that neither of the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment, both of whom are directly interested—

Sir W. de FRECE: I am not interested at all.

Mr. MACLEAN: You were interested, and you still have a platonic interest. I mean that you had knowledge of the industry in the past, and that ought to have enabled you to give the figures showing that the theatre industry has the biggest number of employés. The figures are obtainable. The fact that no figures have been produced by the Mover or Seconder is sufficient to show me that there is something wanting in their case.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the hon. Member give the figures?

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would accept the figures if I did give them. I notice that he has removed from below the Gangway to a seat next to the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting. Perhaps he will get the figures from his hon. Friend.

Mr. BECKER: You do not know them.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not say that I do. Does the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker) know them?

Mr. BECKER: No, and I do not pretend that I do.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then sit down. If the hon. Member wants figures, he can get them, or I can get them for him. I made a statement, and it has not been challenged.

Sir W. de FRECE: I challenged it.

Sir A. BUTT: I challenged it.

Mr. MACLEAN: The two hon. Members have not produced the figures. If hon. Members opposite are in favour of the total abolition of the duty, I hope they will go in the Lobby to-night, and we shall keep them to that pledge when we bring forward total abolition next year.

Sir A. BUTT: Come with us.

Mr. MACLEAN: Not to-night to the West End theatres. I want to see all the Entertainments Duties, including those on theatres and sports, removed. I do not mean those entertainments which the hon. Member opposite frequents, and which seem to give him some amusement, even when he comes down to the House, so that the memory of them keeps him smiling. I want to see the tax removed from all entertainments and sports, but this cannot be done this year.

Sir A. BUTT: I agree.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member should agree to this being done in part, if it cannot be done entirely.

Sir A. BUTT: No. Use the money for the whole community.

Mr. MACLEAN: I hope that the hon. Member will back us up when we propose schemes in which we intend money to be used for the whole community.

Sir A. BUTT: I have been waiting impatiently to hear them.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is the first time that I have known of any impatience on these benches. Usually hon. Members opposite have been too patient in bringing in legislation that is required. I support the proposal of the Chancellor on the understanding that next year, with a Labour Government still in power, we can carry out the total abolition of the Entertainments Duty.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has attacked the Amendment to reduce this tax because he is satisfied with the reduction which the Government have already made.

Mr. MACLEAN: No.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: He is endeavouring to satisfy his conscience so as to allow himself to vote with his Government on this point. We on this side who have moved the total abolition of the duty have done so because we believe, and I think hon. Members on the Government Bench also believe, that this tax should be swept away and that the people should be allowed to have their amusement without any tax. We have heard a great deal to-night about theatres and cinemas, and they have been referred to as an industry. I have very little knowledge of that industry, and I have no connection with it I put down the Amendment for the
total abolition of this tax because I think that we ought to act on behalf of the people who have got to go to those theatres and cinemas. They have been left out of the discussion. I welcome the reduction of this tax. It is because I think it should have gone further that I move that the tax should be abolished entirely. Last year I think it was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who, in replying in Debate, led the House to believe that this year the tax would be entirely abolished. A great many of us were under the impression that that would be done this year and the party that are now in power—[HON. MEMBERS: "In office!"]—well, the party now in office were agreed last year that the tax should be entirely abolished.
What assurance have we that the reduction which is now being made will benefit the people who go to the cinemas? Of course, all who pay under 6d. will have the benefit, but in the case of those who pay between 6d. and 1s. 3d., if there is to be a scale up to the 1s. 3d. mark, it will be extremely difficult to pass the reduction on to those who go to the cinema or go to the galleries of provincial theatres. It would have been better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had boldly done away with this tax altogether. I had hoped that he would have done so because in the speech last year he called the tax a mean tax and this view was shared by many other hon. Members on the Government benches. The hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Hemmerde) moved a reduction last year, in an excellent speech, and I hope that we shall have the privilege of hearing him again to-night. We also heard the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Captain O'Grady), who has always been associated with the industry and taken a prominent part in asking that this tax should be abolished. I hope that he also will favour us with his views and that he will vote for the total abolition. I hope sincerely that those on the Government Benches will give some indication of their thoughts on this problem.
Reference has been made to the British Empire Exhibition. An amusement tax of 3d. is paid by everyone who goes there. That is a considerable tax on an entrance fee of 1s. 6d., and it would be beneficial if it were removed. I think that there is a great deal in what has been said by hon. Members on this side as to West End
theatres. I have no interest in this matter, but I believe that there is no question of the industry making big profits, because it has not been doing so of late years. But some theatres in the West End do give straight drama, and, of course, opera, to which a large section of the population go, and I see no reason why they should have to pay this tax. I welcome the reduction in the case of the cinemas, but the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the tax must re-act unfairly on theatres. Having put forward this proposal, he may not be inclined to go back on it and abolish the tax, but hon. Members have got to take these facts into consideration and will have to press this Amendment to a Division. It is a bad tax. It has been called the bad tax by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and by other hon. Members. All this House need do is to read the reports of the Debate last year to learn what were the views then expressed by the party now in office, and if it is such a bad tax as the party now in office declared last year, then hon. Members should vote for its total abolition.

Mr. HEMMERDE: I do not intend to detain the House very long, but as on a former occasion when we had a Division I took part in the Debate, I should not like to give a silent vote on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) does not seem to me to quite understand what it is that we complain of. When he says that this is merely a matter of the London theatres—40 London theatres is what he said—he is really quite unconsciously misrepresenting the facts of the case. As a matter of fact, this tax is not going to help the theatre industry in any part of the country. It is not going to help, at any rate, the leading theatres all through the provinces. It is not even going to help the second class theatres all through the provinces. After all, if you stand for a party that has as one of its ambitions municipal theatres, national theatres and national opera and municipal opera, are we really going to salve our consciences by saying we are going to do something to help the cinema and the small, cheap theatre and the shows, and leave those very things which supply high class drama and music all through the country to bear the whole burden of the tax.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) when he said the Chancellor had done nothing. I think the Chancellor has given something to the industry, but he has given it in the wrong way. I understand what we have to consider on this Amendment is, shall we abolish it altogether six months hence, or shall we abolish half of it now. I think the right way was to abolish it altogether, starting on a later day. The Chancellor is limited with regard to money, and I should have been perfectly prepared to have supported a proposal to abolish the tax entirely later in the year. I cannot share the confidence of my friends around me that this tax is certain to be abolished next year. I am going to vote against this tax. I do not understand that I can get out of a pledge given after I have heard every man on the Front Bench here practically supporting it. I gave a pledge after consideration limited in this way, "I will vote for the abolition of the tax on indoor amusements." If the Chancellor tells us that he is sure that the public are going to have the benefit of the reduction of tax on outdoor amusements, I can only tell him that really I do not think his advisers have quite considered the position. I do not believe you are going to get any serious reduction throughout the country on entrance to cricket and football matches. The whole of that is going to be given to the clubs and not to the public at all. You are getting a certain amount on the cheap cinemas, and I am delighted you are going to get that.
I do not think the cinema industry is as important to the country as the theatre and music. But I think it is most unfair, after all that has been said upon this tax, that we should have now what appears to be almost a deliberate subsidising of what has practically no educational effect at the expense of music and the theatre. Some hon. Members may think the cinema is an educative force in the country. I do not. It is better than some plays, yes. I do not quite understand the position of people who will put a tax upon such plays as Bernard Shaw's play now running in London and will not take the tax off the cheap cinema undertaking in this country. I am not concerned entirely in taxation with the consumer. We have got to consider the industry. We had quotations just now from
what Messrs. Chappell lost upon certain concerts last year. It is worth considering, especially on a Budget that is giving Messrs. Chappell considerable cause to think when you come to the McKenna Duties, with the abolition of which I am in entire sympathy. But you have got to consider in one way or another the theatrical industry at the present time—and I allude not only to the theatre but to music, because this tax hits everybody who gives a concert, struggling young beginners and people who are finding it difficult. You have got here during this season, which we hope will be good in London, three opera companies running. The whole world that understands music will, no doubt, understand opera. You will not; you will tax it. I cannot be a party, so long as I honestly believe in the nationalisation and municipalisation of music and the drama and making great educative forces out of these, to a tax that is not a tax upon the consumer but, in my opinion—and I know it is shared by everyone in the business—ultimately comes down on the industry itself. I started in 1915 and I condemned the tax when it was brought in on exactly the grounds on which I condemn it to-day. You have no right to tax an industry like that. It is an industry which, whenever it has the opportunity, always comes forward and lends its theatres, and the artists lend their services, for any good cause. I am not going to alter my views upon this question. I fought this question whenever it was raised in the House, I am bound to support any Amendment that will abolish this tax. I hope sincerely that this tax, next year, will be abolished, but if the House takes the matter into its own hands and abolishes it this year, I for one, should think the House right.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that the Debate on the Entertainments Duty has followed the lines with which we are familiar from the Debates of recent years. I rise to explain the view which the Government take on this matter, and also to indicate one or two points, not merely in reply to criticism in this House, but also in response to the suggestions which have been made to us in recent times. What is the proposal the Chancellor of the Echequer makes, and what would be
the effect of the Amendment now proposed by hon. Members opposite? It is quite clear, taking the Amendment, that it simply means that we are to do nothing at all by way of change until the early part of October next and then at that date to abolish the tax altogether. May I remind hon. Members at once that the cost within this year would be about £4,750,000, and £9,500,000 in a full year. Against that my right hon. Friend proposes to abolish, as from the early part of June, the whole of the tax up to 6d and, further than that, modification in tax up the scale to 1s. 3d.
When that is applied during the course of this year, from May, the cost will be approximately £3,400,000, and £4,000,000 in a full year, or, roundly speaking, not much short of one half of the total yield of this duty. So that, taking it as a plain and simple proposition, the choice would appear to lie to-night between covering a fair part of the scale in regard to the cheaper seats, and postponing any remission in order to get abolition in October next. There are hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt), who suggest that there is some breaking of a pledge on our part, because we have hitherto supported the abolition of this tax. Let me make it plain that our views on that matter are entirely unchanged. The House will recall that we came into office in January of this year, when estimates had to a great extent been fixed for a year ahead, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to consider a little later how far he could go towards realisation of the ideals which, in common with other Members of the House, we share in this matter. Let us notice the criticism of the hon. Member for Balham. He tells us that he has always been against the abolition of this duty on the ground that he wanted a preference for foodstuffs. We have given a large and drastic reduction of the taxation on food. We have gone beyond that, and have made this proposal, to the extent of giving up £3,400,000, or £4,000,000 in a full year, of this Entertainments Duty.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not £2,500,000?

Mr. GRAHAM: No; for the remaining portion of this year it will be £3,400,000.

Sir H. CROFT: I thought you were referring to the McKenna Duties.

Mr. GRAHAM: They are like King Charles' head. The hon. and gallant Member will have an opportunity on that subject to-morrow. We have made a serious inroad upon the weight of this Entertainments Duty. The criticism advanced is that we have done nothing at all for the higher priced seats, and that we have left the problem of the West End London theatre untouched. I dare not detain the House by arguing the problem of the West End theatre, but anyone who has gone into that problem will admit that, after all, the Entertainments Duty is only one factor in the situation, and I am by no means satisfied that it is the biggest factor from the point of view of the difficulty that some of these West End theatres are encountering now. My right hon. Friend had to find out how, by such relief as he was able to give, he could confer a benefit upon the largest possible number of people. Hon. Members suggest that this is a vote-catching device, but surely that is not real criticism of a proposal of this kind. In all Budget taxation, when it comes to a question of remission, the inevitable desire is to find out where the weight of a tax lies, and, in the second place, so to adjust the remission that we confer the benefit on the largest number of people. When we applied that test to the Entertainments Duty, it was obvious that the great bulk of this tax came from the comparatively cheap and the very cheap seats in cinemas and other entertainments. In fact, if the tax were abolished up to the 2s. seats, which is a moderate price, the cost in round figures would be about £8,000,000. So that out of £9,500,000 we have £8,000,000 accounted for as pertaining to a very cheap class of accommodation.
If my right hon. Friend had been able to make as great a sacrifice as that, I have no doubt that that would have been one of the first of his desires, but it was found that to carry abolition up to 6d., and a modification of the duty up to 1s. 3d., would involve us in a full year in a loss of £4,000,000. There are many people who, while agreeing with us about the ultimate abolition of the Entertainments Duty, have criticised us strongly for giving a concession of this kind at all in
the existing conditions of our national finance. They have said that this Entertainments Duty cannot rank with other claims, particularly food. On the other hand, probably the great majority of Members of this House will agree that if we take the cheaper seats of these cinemas, and if we look to the conditions under which classes of our people are, unfortunately, compelled to live, it is not true to say that entertainment is a luxury or an entertainment in the strict sense. I am prepared to call it, by my own definition, one of the conventional necessaries of life for these people. If that be true, undoubtedly the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer confers immediate and substantial benefit upon that class.
Suggestions have been made that, within the limits of what we propose to concede, there might be some readjustment of the scale. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to any further consideration or any further concession which he may be able to make. In the first place, we cannot agree to any modification of the complete exemption up to 6d. In the second place, it is quite impossible for my right hon. Friend, with his other commitments, to agree to anything which will cost him more than the £3,400,000, or the £4,000,000 in a full year. Those two points are for us beyond a shadow of doubt. My right hon. Friend is willing to consider whether in practice it would be possible so to delay the introduction of this change as to confer a benefit by way of reduction rather higher up the scale, but he has come to the conclusion that he must adhere to the date suggested, namely, 2nd June, with this proviso on his part—that subject to those considerations, he is willing to consider any modification of the scale which can be suggested, although I, personally, take the view that it will be hard to discover a method of spreading the remission more equitably and generously than that which we have devised.
A few words upon the general problem There is no modification at all on our part of our opposition to this tax. My right hon. Friend was one of its strongest opponents in other times, and the party which is represented in this quarter of the House is still against the
Entertainments Duty. We think we have done a great deal in the short time we have been in office and with the resources at our disposal in giving away in a full year £4,000,000. I cannot anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may do in any future Budget which he may introduce, but my right hon. Friend and I are perfectly clear on this point, that if we are given another year of office it will be one of our strong desires and one of our keen desires—without making a pledge at this moment—to see this Duty abolished altogether.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: May I ask a question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had received a pledge from the interests concerned that the remission would be passed on to the consumer. Can the hon. Gentleman give us some information as to how that result is to be achieved?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is true that authorised representatives of the industry have told us that they are very anxious indeed to see the remission passed on to the consumer, but clearly it is difficult for us on this side of the House to say to-night precisely how that can be worked out. I would only point out to the House that if they do not carry out that idea and, if the prices are not reduced, then, as I think they themselves would agree, a very large part of their campaign will be defeated in that they will not attract that extra patronage which they expect from tax remission.

Major COLFOX: This Debate has been a strange one, in that the supporters of the Amendment appear, in their own minds, to oppose it, while the opponents of the Amendment would seem, judging from their speeches, to be at heart supporters of the proposal. No hon. Member has yet expressed himself in favour of the retention of the Entertainments Duty. In my view it is the best and most just form of taxation, next after the Income Tax, which could possibly be imposed on the citizens of this country. The principle of taxation, in my view, should be to tax the luxuries of every one of us. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece) suggests that entertainments are not luxuries, and when he says that to witness a performance of a Shakespearean play is not a luxury, I, to
a certain extent, find myself in agreement with him. At the same time one cannot seriously combat the statement that all forms of entertainment, whether indulged in by rich and prosperous people or by their less fortunate fellow-citizens, are entertainments. It is true to say, as has been said, that medical practitioners recommend their patients to take part in entertainments. Entertainments and recreation are to some extent for the good of one's health and make one better able to carry out one's duties, but, in fact, when we analyse the question there are very few luxuries which, if indulged in moderately, are not to the benefit of those who indulge in them. They are none the less luxuries, and I therefore cannot imagine any form of taxation which in principle is fairer than the Entertainments Duty. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said we do not tax all luxuries, and he asked, "Why not tax jewellery?" Why not, indeed? The ideal of perfection would be to tax all forms of luxury spending, if it were possible and practicable, but clearly it is not feasible or practicable to tax all forms of luxury spending. One only wishes it were. Here, however, is a form of luxury spending which it is practicable to tax, which has been taxed with considerable success for several years, and which should continue to be taxed.
It will be interesting to read the Division List of the Division which will be taken presently and to compare it with the Division taken a week or two ago on the Summer Time Bill. Here to-night we have the advocates of the entertainment industry supporting a proposal for the total abolition of the Entertainments Duty because, they tell us, it presses with undue severity upon that industry. I wonder if we shall find that those same advocates were among those who supported the Second Reading of the Summer Time Bill, which representatives of the theatrical profession say will have a more disastrous effect upon the theatrical industry than the Entertainments Duty. We have it from the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt), with his great knowledge, that the abolition and reduction, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will do considerable harm to indoor entertainments and confer no benefit on the
consumer. Therefore, there can be no excuse for offering to sacrifice on behalf of the nation this source of revenue unless it be that the right hon. Gentleman hopes thereby to secure for himself and his party a substantial number of votes at the next election. He tells us that it is a mean tax. I agree with him to this extent, that the incidence of the duty has until now been unfair. If the Chancellor's proposal were to equalise the incidence of this duty and bring it as nearly as possible into proportion with the prices charged for admission, I feel he would have the support of all hon. Members. It is just and equitable that everyone should pay a portion of this duty, but it is also just and equitable that each one should pay in proportion to the amount which he is prepared to spend upon himself. No one likes to pay taxation. Taxation is an unpleasant necessity, but, surely, it must be recognised to be the duty and the privilege of every citizen, rich and poor, to take his share in paying his portion of that taxation.

Mr. CLIMIE: The speech to which we have just listened by the hon. and galant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) reminds me, though I was not a Member of the House last year, more of what I heard were the views, of hon. Members opposite, than does the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece). The Labour party have always declared themselves in favour of the abolition of the Entertainments Duty, and I am glad indeed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able at this time to do what he has done towards the abolition of the tax. Personally, I should have been glad if he had seen his way to abolish this tax altogether. From the statement that we have just heard from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, what I have long had in my own mind has been borne out, namely, that it was the comparatively poor people of the community who paid the major portion of this Entertainments Duty. We now know that quite £8,000,000, out of a total of £9,500,000 collected from this tax, is paid by people who can only afford, when they go to entertainments, to pay up to a price of 2s., proving quite definitely, I think, that the major portion of this tax
is a very heavy burden indeed upon the comparatively poor section of the population.
10.0 P.M.
I make no great complaint at all about the Chancellor of the Exchequer being able to relieve those taxpayers only to the extent of £4,000,000. The Amendment, I believe, would mean that the right hon. Gentleman would require to find another £5,500,000, but no estimate has been brought forward as to where he should find that money. [An HON. MEMBER: "The McKenna Duties!"] We will hear to-morrow arguments as to whether or not the McKenna Duties should come off, but I should not be in order in discussing that question now. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment did not hint where the Chancellor of the Exchequer should find this money. Does he mean that the Corporation Profits Tax should not be taken off, or that the Sugar Duty or the Tea Duty should not have been reduced? He has not said. The only thing he does is to complain because the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot take rabbits out of a hat. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman, when he is limited with his money, has the courage to do what he has done. After all, when it is remembered that he is relieving taxation by £4,000,000 in a full year on the small amounts that those people pay to go into the small cinema shows and into the cheap seats in theatres, it must mean that hundreds of thousands—nay, millions—of people will be benefited by this remission of tax in connection with entertainments. I understand that the Mover of the Amendment takes a very keen interest in entertainments, and I do hope that he will realise that at last we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is willing to go along the road that he wants him to travel. He is not able to go all the way this time, but the hon. Member can depend upon it that next year, when the Labour party comes into power, there is every possibility of this tax being entirely wiped out.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I appeal to the House to come to a decision on this Amendment? It will be remembered that last week the Government agreed, suiting the convenience of the House, and in order to avoid a late Sitting, to give part of another day to the remainder of the Report stage of these Resolutions. I
think this Amendment has been quite adequately discussed. I do not wish to move the Closure, but with general agreement I hope we may go to a division now.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I am afraid I shall have to oppose this Amendment, because I am one of the few in this House who are in favour of the retention of the Entertainments Duty. As, however, the majority are evidently in favour either of its reduction or total abolition, it seems that the only point of substance to which one can address oneself is to endeavour to see that the remission of taxation is passed on to the public and is not put into the pockets of the cinema trust. I was somewhat disappointed at the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in regard to the value and the extent of the pledge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to extract from the theatrical profession. It seemed to me to be a pledge of no substance whatever, but merely a pious hope that they might be able to pass a certain proportion of the rebate on to the public. If one looks at the actual scale of the reduction, that is to say, on the cheap seats, in which the lowest price is 2½d., with the tax at ½d., one will see the great difficulty of passing on a remission of that kind to the public.
The cinema interests have attacked upon two lines. Looking at the scale, it seems to me there will be great difficulty in passing on a remission of that kind to the public. The cinema industry have attacked on two lines. First of all, they have said they are so hard up that they are losing money. That is not borne out by the actual statistics of the case. During the last year no fewer than 54 new cinemas have been put up with a total seating capacity of something like 66,000. That does not imply extraordinarily bad trade. As hon. Members know quite well, after the War ended there was a boom of cinemas in exactly the same way as there was a boom in everything else. A very large number of cinemas was erected in places where there was not sufficient public for the seating

capacity provided. Those cinemas have failed as all badly-devised industries should fail. They have not failed because the cinemas were bad, but because the situations selected for the picture houses were not good. Therefore, I would ask the House to look at it in this way. In some cases there is bad business in cinemas because the halls are in bad situations. In others, the cinema trade is booming. In the places where the trade is bad, why should the cinema man pass on any of this remission to the public? There is no reason at all why he should. In those places where the trade is good, he has merely to increase the price of his seats. He is supplying a public demand, and therefore he is independent. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt), who knows a great deal of the technicalities of this trade, that there is nothing whatever to prevent the cinema interests increasing the price of their seats if they have the public there who will pay the price, thereby eliminating altogether the cheaper seats. For that reason, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a suggestion in regard to this taxation. It is that he should have an evaluation made of the seating capacity of the theatre or cinema hall, and on that work out what the actual tax would be where this rebate has been given, and then assess that theatre or cinema as to the percentage which it should pay, leaving it to evaluate the seats as it likes. That would do two things: it would remove the tax from the ticket, which annoys the public very much, and it would enable the managers of the halls or theatres to price their seats as they like. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, to consider that suggestion.

Mr. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 157.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[10.10 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Ayles, W. H.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Baker, Walter


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Alstead, R.
Banton, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Aske, Sir Robert William
Barnes, A.


Alden, Percy
Attlee, Major Clement R.
Batey, Joseph


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hobhouse, A. L.
Raffan, P. W.


Birkett, W. N.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Raffety, F. W.


Black, J. W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Bondfield, Margaret
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Rathbone, Hugh R.


Bonwick, A.
Hughes, Collingwood
Raynes, W. R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Rea, W. Russell


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rendall, A.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Jewson, Dorothea
Richards, R.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brunner, Sir J.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Buckie, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Royce, William Stapleton


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Royle, C.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Climie, R.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Scrymgeour, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kedward, R. M.
Scurr, John


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Keens, T.
Sexton, James


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Compton, Joseph
Kenyon, Barnet
Shinwell, Emanuel


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cory, Sir Clifford
Laverack, F. J.
Simpson, J. Hope


Costello, L. W. J.
Law, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Crittall, V. G.
Lawson, John James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Darbishire, C. W.
Leach, W.
Snell, Harry


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lindley, F. W.
Spence, R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Linfield, F. C.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Livingstone, A. M.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Loverseed, J. F.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Dickson, T.
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Dodds, S. R.
Lunn, William
Starmer, Sir Charles


Duckworth, John
McCrae, Sir George
Stephen, Campbell


Dukes, C.
McEntee, V. L.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sullivan, J.


Egan, W. H.
Maden, H.
Sunlight, J.


England, Colonel A.
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Falconer, J.
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Finney, V. H.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Tattersall, J. L.


Foot, Isaac
Marley, James
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Franklin, L. B.
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Thurtle, E.


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Middleton, G.
Tout, W. J.


Gillett, George M.
Millar, J. D.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gorman, William
Mills, J. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Varley, Frank B.


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Mond, H.
Viant, S. P.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick
Vivian, H.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morris, R. H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greenall, T.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Groves, T.
Morse, W. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, T. W.
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Guest, Dr L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Muir, John W.
Welsh, J. C.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Westwood, J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murray, Robert
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Harbord, Arthur
Nichol, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Hardie, George D.
Nixon, H.
Wignall, James


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Owen, Major G.
Willison, H.


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Haycock, A. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Parry, Thomas Henry
Wintringham, Margaret


Hayes, John Henry
Perry, S. F.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hemmerde, E. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Phillipps, Vivian
Wright, W.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Potts, John S.



Hillary, A. E.
Pringle, W. M. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Warne.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Apsley, Lord
Austin, Sir Herbert
Banks, Reginald Mitchell


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gates, Percy
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Becker, Harry
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Perring, William George


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Philipson, Mabel


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Raine, W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Berry, Sir George
Gretton, Colonel John
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Betterton, Henry B.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Remer, J. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Remnant, Sir James


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, G. S.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Harland, A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Blundell, F. N.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hogge, James Myles
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Buller, Sir Geoffrey
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Savery, S. S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hood, Sir Joseph
Shepperson, E. W.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Cassels, J. D.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard, Hon. D. (Cumberland, North)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Stanley, Lord


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Steel, Samuel Strang


Clarry, Reginald George
Huntingfield, Lord
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clayton, G. C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sutcliffe, T.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cope, Major William
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Lamb, J. Q.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Waddington, R.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lyle, Sir Leonard
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wells, S. R.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Weston, John Wakefield


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


Elveden, Viscount
Meller, R. J.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ferguson, H.
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Wragg, Herbert


FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Pease, William Edwin



Frece, Sir Walter de
Pennefather, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Frederick George
Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Commander B. Eyres-Monsell.

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'Second day of June' stand part of the said Resolution."

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. HARMSWORTH: (seated and covered): In voting for this Amendment, are we also voting for the consequential Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the same hon. Member?

Mr. SPEAKER: They are practically the same.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Are we voting for the total abolition of the Entertainments Duty, if we vote for this Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must leave hon. Members to interpret their own Amendment.

The House divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 69.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Ayles, W. H.
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Baker, Walter
Bondfield, Margaret


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Banton, G.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Alden, Percy
Barnes, A.
Brass, Captain W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Batey, Joseph
Broad, F. A.


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Beckett, Sir Gervase
Bromfield, William


Alstead, R.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Brunner, Sir J.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Birkett, W. N.
Buchanan, G.


Austin, Sir Herbert
Black, J. W.
Buckie, J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jewson, Dorothea
Richards, R.


Burman, J. B.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Ropner, Major L.


Climie, R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Royce, William Stapleton


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Royle, C.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Keens, T.
Savery, S. S.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Seely, Rt. Hn. Maj.-Gen. J. E. B. (I. of W.)


Cory, Sir Clifford
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sexton, James


Costello, L. W. J.
Kirkwood, D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Shepperson, E. W.


Crittall, V. G.
Laverack, F. J.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Darbishire, C. W.
Law, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lawson, John James
Simpson, J. Hope


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Leach, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Lindley, F. W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Dickson, T.
Linfield, F. C.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dodds, S. R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Duckworth, John
Loverseed, J. F.
Snell, Harry


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dukes, C.
Lunn, William
Spence, R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McCrae, Sir George
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
McEntee, V. L.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Egan, W. H.
Mackinder, W.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Elveden, Viscount
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stamford, T. W.


Falconer, J.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Starmer, Sir Charles


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Steel, Samuel Strang


Foot, Isaac
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Stephen, Campbell


Franklin, L. B.
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Stranger, Innes Harold


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine, E.)
Sturrock, J. Leng


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Sullivan, J.


Gillett, George M.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Sunlight, J.


Gorman, William
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Gosling, Harry
Middleton, G.
Sutton, J. E.


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Millar, J. D.
Tattersall, J. L.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Greenall, T.
Mond, H.
Thurtle, E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Tout, W. J.


Gretton, Colonel John
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Groves, T.
Morse, W. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Grundy, T. W.
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Varley, Frank B.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Muir, John W.
Viant, S. P.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Vivian, H.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murray, Robert
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Harbord, Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hardie, George D.
Nichol, Robert
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Harland, A.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Nixon, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Harris, Percy A.
O'Grady, Captain James
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Westwood, J.


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hayday, Arthur
Owen, Major G.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wignall, James


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parry, Thomas Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Perry, S. P.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Phillipps, Vivian
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Willison, H.


Hobhouse, A. L.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Windsor, Walter


Hoffman, P. C.
Purcell, A. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hogge, James Myles
Raffan, P. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Howard, Hon. D. (Cumberland, North)
Raffety, F. W.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Rathbone, Hugh R.
Wright, W.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Raynes, W. R.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Rea, W. Russell



Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rendall, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Warne.




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ferguson, H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Apsley, Lord
Forestier-Walker, L.
Remer, J. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis F.
Remnant, Sir James


Becker, Harry
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gates, Percy
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Berry, Sir George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bonwick, A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hemmerde, E. G.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Cassels, J. D.
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sutcliffe, T.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Waddington, R.


Clayton, G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lyle, Sir Leonard
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Maden, H.
Weston, John Wakefield


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Meller, R. J.
Wragg, Herbert


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



England, Colonel A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Raine, W.
Sir Walter de Frece and Sir Alfred Butt.

Mr. SNOWDEN: claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That this

House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 42.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[10.35 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Cove, W. G.
Harbord, Arthur


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hardie, George D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Crittall, V. G.
Harland, A.


Alden, Percy
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Darbishire, C. W.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Harris, Percy A.


Alstead, R.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)


Ayles, W. H.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Haycock, A. W.


Baker, Walter
Dickie, Captain J. P.
Hayday, Arthur


Banton, G.
Dickson, T.
Hayes, John Henry


Barnes, A.
Dodds, S. R.
Hemmerde, E. G.


Batey, Joseph
Duckworth, John
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dudgeon, Major C. H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dukes, C.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Hillary, A. E.


Birkett, W. N.
Egan, W. H.
Hindle, F.


Black, J. W.
England, Colonel A.
Hirst, G. H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Falconer, J.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)


Bondfield, Margaret
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hoffman, P. C.


Bonwick, A.
Finney, V. H.
Hogbin, Henry Cairns


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Foot, Isaac
Hogge, James Myles


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Howard, Hon. D. (Cumberland, North)


Brass, Captain W.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)


Broad, F. A.
Gates, Percy
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Bromfield, William
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brunner, Sir J.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Buchanan, G.
Gorman, William
Jephcott, A. R.


Buckie, J.
Gosling, Harry
Jewson, Dorothea


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Climie, R.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Cluse, W. S.
Greenall, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Groves, T.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Compton, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.
Kedward, R. M.


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Keens, T.


Cope, Major William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cory, Sir Clifford
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kirkwood, D.


Costello, L. W. J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lamb, J. Q.


Lansbury, George
Paling, W.
Stamford, T. W.


Laverack, F. J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stanley, Lord


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Parry, Thomas Henry
Starmer, Sir Charles


Lawson, John James
Penny, Frederick George
Stephen, Campbell


Leach, W.
Perry, S. F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lee, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Lindley, F. W.
Phillipps, Vivian
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Linfield, F. C.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Sturrock, J. Leng


Livingstone, A. M.
Potts, John S.
Sullivan, J.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Sunlight, J.


Loverseed, J. F.
Purcell, A. A.
Sutcliffe, T.


Lowth, T.
Raffan, P. W.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Lunn, William
Raffety, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


McCrae, Sir George
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


McEntee, V. L.
Rathbone, Hugh R.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Mackinder, W.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Raynes, W. R.
Thurtle, E.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rea, W. Russell
Tillett, Benjamin


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tinker, John Joseph


Maden, H.
Rendall, A.
Tout, W. J.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Richards, R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


March, S.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Varley, Frank B.


Marley, James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Viant, S. P.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Vivian, H.


Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine, E.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Royce, William Stapleton
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Royle, C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Middleton, G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Millar, J. D.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Mills, J. E.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Scrymgeour, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Mond, H.
Scurr, John
Westwood, J.


Montague, Frederick
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Seely, Rt. Hn. Maj.-Gen. J. E. B. (I. of W.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Morris, R. H.
Sexton, James
Whiteley, W.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wignall, James


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shinwell, Emanuel
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Morse, W. E.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Moulton, Major Fletcher
Simpson, J. Hope
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Muir, John W.
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Murray, Robert
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Willison, H.


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Snell, Harry
Windsor, Walter


Nichol, Robert
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Nixon, H.
Spence, R.
Wright, W.


O'Grady, Captain James
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Oliver, George Harold
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)



Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Spero, Dr. G. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Owen, Major G.
Spoor, B. G.
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.


NOES.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Shepperson, E. W.


Becker, Harry
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burman, J. B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cassels, J. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hood, Sir Joseph
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Waddington, R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lyle, Sir Leonard
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Meller, R. J.
Wintringham, Margaret


Dawson, Sir Philip
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ferguson, H.
Remer, J. R.
Sir Fredric Wise and Mr. Rawlinson.


Ninth Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment on the Paper, in line 4, to leave out the words 'August, nineteen hundred and twenty-
four," and to insert instead thereof the words "May, nineteen hundred and twenty-five" is out of Order, as it imposes a charge.

Sir BEDDOE REES: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out the words "and sixpence."
My main object in moving this Amendment is to call attention to what I consider to be the weak part of the Budget. The Budget may be bad or it may be good, but I do not think anybody can say it is a safe Budget. The disproportion between direct and indirect taxation as we see the proposals of the Chancellor to my mind suggests that this is not a safe Budget. It certainly cannot be defended on economic grounds. It may be popular. It has undoubtedly been framed to give something to the largest number of people. But the Chancellor has forgotten a small section of the people who require some consideration, namely, the section that has to pay Income Tax. Out of a surplus of £38,000,000 the Chancellor allots £34,000,000 in relief of indirect taxation, and about £4,000,000 in relief of direct taxation. The only real concession to industry in the Budget is the repeal of the Corporation Profits Tax. That amounts to about £2,000,000 in this year. The Chancellor tells us in a full year the Corporation Profits Tax will amount to £12,500,000. He does not tell us from where the other £10,500,000 will come to pay for it. I suggest that the point at which the Income Tax stands to-day is ruinous from the point of view of industry. When Pitt, I think it was, first levied an Income Tax in 1798, it was intended purely as a temporary expedient. It was intended to pay for the expense of the French War, but it was repealed in 1816. Until 1842 there was no further attempt to levy an Income Tax in this country. In 1842 there was the repeal of about 700 import duties, a bigger tax than the McKenna Duties. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer had to find some other means of collecting revenue, and he restored the Income Tax. In 1874 Mr. Gladstone—[HON. MEMBERS: "What did he say in 1874?"] Well, I will tell you what he said. He said in 1874 that if he were returned at the General Election that year he would abolish the Income Tax. But he did not get back. Disraeli became the Premier after the Election of 1874. He said, "I will reduce the tax from 4d. to 2d." And he did.
From then the growth of Income Tax has been marked. In the attempt to
make our principles of taxation as broad as possible, there was brought about an increase in indirect taxation until it was about equal in proportion to that of direct taxation. From 1874 down to about 1900 the Income Tax never exceeded about 8d. in the £. When the Liberals came into power in 1906, they carried such beneficent measures as Old Age Pensions and Unemployment Insurance, and that was the excuse for increasing the Income Tax until it stood at about 1s. 2d. in 1914. From then onwards it mounted up and up, until in 1921 and 1922 it stood at 6s. in the £, with a Super-tax of an equal amount. Then it was found that industry could not possibly carry that burden, and the tax was reduced last year to 4s. 6d. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook that as soon as circumstances permitted the tax would be further reduced. One does expect even a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer to have regard to the principles of sound finance. I am trying to show him that, although he boasts about British credit, by his Budget and by the disproportion between direct and indirect taxation, he is striking a blow at British credit, and he is certainly undermining the very basis of industry in this country. Industry can carry only a certain amount. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who certainly was one of the beat Chancellors of the Exchequer this country has over had, laid it down, when Chancellor, that the proportion between direct and indirect taxation should be 52 direct taxation and 48 indirect taxation. Last year the proportion stood at 63 direct taxation and 37 indirect taxation. As a result of this Budget, the proportion will be about 71 direct taxation and 29 indirect taxation.
11.0 P.M.
That may be something of which a certain section will be proud. All that I suggest is that it is not good finance. It is a drag on the industry of the country, and it is the people who will suffer from it. In 1913 we extracted from industry, by way of direct taxation, £44,000,000. Last year we extracted £330,000,000 from industry by way of direct taxation. I do not object to paying it, but I want it to be distributed evenly. About four and a half million people are assessable for Income Tax, but by an ever increasing system of abatements and allowances, two million
escape the taxation altogether, and so you have two and a half million paying approximately half the taxes of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That may suit certain hon. Members. I am not arguing in favour of any particular section, except from this point of view, that it is not a good method, it is not sound, it is a drag on industry, and, as such, is against the interests of the working people as well as others. The present Government were returned largely because it was understood that they had a solution for unemployment. At every street corner, on every platform, in every speech, we were given to understand that their one concern was unemployment. I challenge anybody to show me in this Budget a single line which will help the unemployed. Indeed, this Budget seems to me to be designed to make unemployment worse than it was before—apart altogether from the question of the McKenna Duties. The removal of the McKenna Duties may or may not increase unemployment, but until you have reduced the burden upon industry you have not begun to solve the problem of unemployment, and the whole Budget, in my view, fails, because it has made the disproportion between direct and indirect taxation greater than it was before.

Colonel ENGLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so I wish to claim consideration for a class which has not been helped by the removal of the Corporation Profits Tax, and that is the class of small business men. The small business man who is running his own business and is not in any way connected with a limited company finds that constant withdrawals of capital in order to meet taxation is a drain which is crippling his business, is preventing its development, and is, consequently, adding to unemployment. Instead of a diminished capital, small businesses to-day require more capital. Hon. Members above the Gangway may not think so, but it is the case. Owing to the higher prices of raw material and the larger wages now being paid, the small business man is, as I say, crippled by constant withdrawals of capital to meet heavy taxation. A reduction such as is proposed by the
hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Bees) would materially assist the industrialist, who is constantly being urged to be patriotic and to develop his business, but by being crippled for capital he is unable to develop the business that he would like to develop. The smaller business man is patriotic and would like to develop his business and do what he could for the benefit of his country and of the workers whom he employs. Instead of that, there is a curb on enterprise and a hindrance to opportunity. The middle class man would receive far more benefit by a reduction of 6d. on his Income Tax than by the reduction of the entrance fee to a cinema. I think the House will admit that on the whole the Budget proposals are shrewd, but, in my opinion, they are inclined to be a little bit selfish. I have no objection to anything that has been done to relieve the indirect taxpayer, but I maintain that the direct taxpayer should receive greater consideration than he has received in this Budget, and under these conditions I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Probably no two Members of the House would be more surprised than the hon. Member who moved this Amendment and the hon. Member who seconded it if I said at once that I was prepared to accept it. The hon. and gallant Member for Heywood (Colonel England) said he had no objection to those proposals of the Budget which effected a reduction of indirect taxation. Therefore, what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind is that his Amendment for a reduction of the Income Tax to the extent of £28,000,000 in a full year should be in addition to the tax remissions already proposed, and which apparently have his hearty support. The hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees), who moved the Amendment, criticised the Budget proposals on the ground that they were not sound. I wonder how sound a Budget would be which maintained the tax reductions already approved by the House, and, in addition, proposed a further reduction of £28,000,000! The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that in making my allocation of relief I had given the greatest relief to the greatest number. The hon. Gentleman speaks from the Radical Benches. I was born a Radical and nurtured in the principles of
Radicalism, and one of the great aims and maxims of Radicalism, I remember, was the greatest good to the greatest number. The hon. Gentleman said that as an alternative to conferring the greatest good on the greatest number, he proposed to give the greatest benefit to the smallest number. He appeared altogether to have forgotten that the class for whom he had been specially pleading received very generous consideration from the two previous Governments. In the Budget of two years ago there was a reduction of 1s. in the £ on the Income Tax. Last year there was a reduction of 6d. The only reductions which have taken place in indirect taxation in those two Budgets were a reduction of 4d. in the pound in the Tea Duty two years ago and a reduction last year of a sum amounting to something like £20,000,000 in the Beer Duty. I thought that, in disposing of the surplus, that I had at my command this year, the time of the indirect taxpayers had come once more.
I was challenged by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, when he asked what did my Budget do for unemployment. I will tell him what it does. I have proposed the abolition of the Corporation Profits Tax, and every deputation of commercial men who waited upon me stated that they considered that the Corporation Profits Tax was one of the obstacles in the way of a revival of trade. I have removed that tax, and by that alone, therefore, on the argument of the hon. Member's own friends, I have removed one of the main obstacles to the revival of trade. Therefore I have done something, at any rate, to encourage and stimulate employment. If one way of helping unemployment be—and this appeared to be the hon. Member's argument—to increase the purchasing power of the people, I have done that in a good many directions and by the remission of many taxes. I have not altogether ignored the class for whom the hon. Member speaks, those who pay Income Tax. I have remitted the Inhabited House Duty yielding £2,000,000 in a full year, nearly £2,000,000 this year, which is a relief to people in the lower category of Income Tax payers. Surely that amount will be available for the stimulation of trade. Therefore in that respect—I admit it is not a great deal—at least I have
done something to encourage employment. That is not all. The indirect taxes I propose to repeal will give the working people of this country, in the main, an additional purchasing power of about £30,000,000 a year. If you want to encourage trade, the way to do it is not to put more spending power in the hands of a few people, but to put more spending power in the hands of the greatest number of people, whose expenditure will be in support of the staple industries of the country. If you relieve the Income Tax payer the chances are 20 to 1 that the relief you give will not be expended in that way, but that the increased power of spending will be devoted to luxuries, because they already have sufficient of the necessaries of life and already take as much as they can consume of the necessary commodities. Therefore I submit that to give the £30,000,000 in indirect taxation, to benefit the greatest number, is doing an enormous amount to help trade and to lessen unemployment; much more than if I had given a similar amount to the relief of the Income Tax payer.
Of course, it is quite impossible that I could make this concession. The hon. Member who seconded this Amendment did not expect that I was going to yield. That was quite evident. I make no complaint of hon. Members in putting forward this Amendment, for with an Income Tax nominally of 4s. 6d. in the £, it is quite right that the attention of the House of Commons should be directed to that matter whenever the opportunity may come. I said, in the course of my Budget statement, that although I could not do anything this year in the way of reduction of the Income Tax, it must not be assumed that I looked forward to the maintenance all the time of an Income Tax at the basic rate of 4s. 6d. All I can say is I cannot do anything this year. I have applied the surplus to other purposes, which, I believe, will confer far greater benefit than if I had given it to a reduction of 6d. in the £ on the Income Tax.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I want to support this Amendment on rather different grounds from those already mentioned, and I hope in what I shall say I shall carry the agreement of the whole House. What I feel is that we have no right to put on this 6d. Income Tax unless
it be absolutely necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are not putting it on!"] I mean the 6d. we wish now to take off. I am afraid I may have expressed myself badly. What I say is we have no right to place this 6d. tax, that this Amendment wishes to take off, on people, unless it be absolutely necessary, because, after all, taxation in itself is bad. There is no argument in favour of taxation unless it be absolutely necessary for the benefit of the community. I do not believe this present rate of Income Tax is necessary, and I want for a few moments to develop the reason why I say so. I believe at the present moment there is an enormous evasion of Income Tax, and if that evasion were stopped, a lower rate of Income Tax would be possible. The Financial Secretary was a distinguished member of a very important Commission, and I think I am right in stating he signed a Report, and he signed a Clause, which stated that evasion of Income Tax probably amounted to between £15,000,000 and £100,000,000 a year.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend will agree that there must be no difference of opinion between us on the facts. The Royal Commission indicated, I think on the advice of the Surveyors and others, that over a period of about four years, including Excess Profits Duty, probably £100,000,000 had been lost, but the loss through evasion was put at a lower sum than that, namely, from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000 per annum. I think the hon. Member will find that those figures are correct.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As a matter of fact, I read that particular clause this evening. One witness stated that in his opinion there was a loss of £100,000,000 a year. Other witnesses said they believed there were losses of about £17,000,000 a year, and I agree one estimate went as low as £5,000,000. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that this concession would cost about £28,000,000 a year. Therefore, I think I am right in saying that if you did your best to stop this leakage, and got rid of evasion, you would go a very long way to be able to accept this Amendment. In losing this amount of revenue you are adding to the burden of those who pay their taxes honestly. I should like to give three instances, be-
cause I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary are just as anxious as anybody else to stop evasion. There is at the present time a complete lack of co-ordination between the Inland Revenue Department and the various Public Departments that assess their own income tax. Take the Ministry of Labour, the India Office, and the War Office. The official in those departments fills up his income tax form, showing the total income received from salary and from foreign income in the department, but the whole of that income is not assesed for tax, but only his salary or pension is taken into account. In these departments no tax whatever is paid upon foreign income. I believe the Admiralty have a system by which they do see that tax is paid upon total income; but in the other departments—so I am advised, and I am saying what is accurate—no account whatever is taken of foreign income shown on those returns.
Again, I believe that at the present time there is practically no co-ordination between the ordinary Inland Revenue Department and the Supertax Commission. When a person fills in his form, page 3, showing his total income, if it is over £2,000, the Inland Revenue takes no notice of the extra amount, and does not let the Supertax Commission know about it. A person, merely depends upon getting a request from the Supertax Commissioners to say what is his income. My information comes from the people engaged in the work. I believe a great deal of income is lost in this manner. My final instance is this: At present the banks do not return the interest they pay on deposit and current accounts. One of the recommendations of the Commission was that all banks should send an account of this. When the bank becomes a trustee it immediately has to show it. Very large sums in interest are paid by banks—I happen to know—which pay absolutely no tax whatsoever. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into this question and that he will carry out the recommendations of the Commission in this respect. I am quite sure that if it is possible to have these leakages stopped we shall be able to get a reduced taxation for those who pay their taxes honestly.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is very curious how hon. Members opposite and below
the Gangway hug their peculiar fallacies to their bosom with regard to the effect of reducing the Income Tax. In their view the reduction of the Income Tax has been one of the principal means, for the last five years, of reviving industry. It was one of the stunts some time ago of the newspaper press, particularly one issued from Carmelite House, which urged their supporters in this House to press for a reduction of the Income Tax on the ground that it would cause the wheels of industry to revolve once more. They had other stunts as well. The year before the last there was a reduction of the Income Tax by 1s. in the £, equal to £50,000,000 a year, but nobody noticed that this made the wheels of industry revolve any more. The same demand was made next year, and the taking off the Income Tax of another 6d. was to be the cause of a wonderful revolution so far as the wheels of industry are concerned, and although £26,000,000 went to the Income Tax payers the wheels of industry did not do any more revolving and even the Board of Trade figures did not show it. Now we are told that if we take off another 6d. the wheels of industry are sure to go round this time. In my view the best way to make the wheels go round is to increase the purchasing power of the masses of the people.
That leads me to another stunt supported by the Opposition and also by some hon. Members below the Gangway and it was to reduce wages in order to develop trade. This was done and the Board of Trade figures show that wages during the last four years have been reduced by £700,000,000. The result was that wheels of industry did not revolve any better because you cannot do that without some improvement in the purchasing power of the people. You want to improve your home market. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite who cheer that remark are the very people who advocated its destruction. We are going to be told to-morrow something about foreign competition in the motor car trade, and the hon. Member who moved this Amendment drew comparisons between the amount paid by indirect taxpayers to-day and during the time of Peel and Pitt. It is notorious what an enormous increase there has been in the fortunes of individuals to-day as compared with 60 or 70 years ago. Justifi-
cation for war taxation and for more direct taxation was provided in a Paper issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year when he gave figures with regard to the income of individuals. I believe his Paper showed that in 1914 there were, in round figures, about 14,000 people paying Super-tax on £176,000,000, while last year the number of Super-tax payers had increased from about 14,000 to about 70,000—

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Super-tax limit has been altered.

Mr. WALLHEAD: —and those 70,000 persons were paying Super-tax, not upon £176,000,000, but upon £470,000,000 of income.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like to mislead the House, but he is leaving out of consideration the fact that in 1914 the people assessed to Super-tax had incomes over £4,999, whereas the number assessed last year must have been much greater, because the assessment came down as low as £2,000. That is a very great factor in the argument.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Even allowing that to be correct, I do not think it destroys the argument, nor do I think that the number of persons paying on incomes between £2,000 and £5,000 would account for the enormous increase.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Of course it does.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently, in answer to a question, gave the number of Super-tax payers with incomes of over £5,000 a year, and also the corresponding number in 1913. In 1913 there were 14,008 persons assessed to Super-tax with incomes of over £5,000 a year, while in 1920–21—the last year for which the Chancellor had the information—there were 27,499, or practically double. There is the justification for increased direct taxation—the enormous increase of individual fortunes. If hon. Gentlemen question that, let them go to the Death Duty returns, and see there whether what I say is not true. When I was a boy a millionaire was considered to be a rarity, but to-day they have become almost as plentiful as blackberries in September, while, as far as one can tell, the mass of the people remain pretty well where they were, so far as
poverty is concerned, 50 years ago. The mass of the people are left always tottering on the edge of poverty. To the mass of the people a reduction of 2d. a pound on sugar comes as almost a God-send to assist them out of the poverty in which they have been placed. When I hear the representatives of such corporations and rich men complaining of the way they are hit by taxation, I think of the men I represent working in the coal trade, many of them working for a wage of 30s. a week in a dangerous occupation. Regret is expressed that they have some slight relief against the Income Tax payer. You cannot have it both ways. I stand here to speak for a loyal body of men. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed rich people a reduction even on their wages bills for their domestic staffs because dutiable articles consumed by the domestic staffs are costing less. In so far as the food they consume is part of their wages their wages are reduced, On the whole they have very little to complain about taking one thing with another and taking the reduction of last year and previous reductions, and the time has come when the people we represent should have their share of reductions.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I regret that I cannot follow the hon. Member in all his arguments, but I should like to point out to him that certain of them are absolutely wrong. In the case of the Super-tax I wish this country had doubled or trebled the number of supertaxpayers. The more capital and the more credit there is in the country the better it is for employment. The hon. Member said that reductions in Income Tax had done nothing for unemployment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I said as far as one could see there is not a great deal of improvement in industry.

Sir F. WISE: The hon. Member does not realise that in 1921 there were over 2,000,000 unemployed and to-day there are 1,100,000. That is what the reduction of direct taxation has done and the hon. Member really should not use an argument of that sort that the reduction of direct taxation has not reduced unemployment. I quite agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make no concessions to the hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees), but I admire the
hon. Member for bringing this forward. I do not think many members of the Labour party realise this great burden of taxation. They are not feeling it. If they only realised that in seven years we spent more than in the two previous centuries they would realise that taxation must be heavy. You cannot get a reduction in taxation, except through revenue, and you can only get your revenue through taxation. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) said that in regard to the unemployed they were really benefiting from the relief of indirect taxation. I cannot help thinking that, while the relief of indirect taxation gives purchasing power, the relief of direct taxation gives purchasing power and gives more chance of employment for the unemployed than is the case when you give remission of indirect taxation. The Income Tax is the sheet-anchor of our taxation, as it always must be, because we think it is the fairest means of taxation. So long as we tax people fairly, the use of the Income Tax is the right policy for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt, but do hon. Members realise the enormous sums that have been taken from the Income Tax and Super-tax payers? In the last five years the Income Tax and Super-tax payers have paid £1,800,000,000. If we include the Excess Profits Duty and the Death Duties, the amount is £2,696,000,000. In spite of this we are the heaviest taxed country in the world.
I notice in a very interesting publication, the "Empire Parliamentary Journal," a comparison of the taxes of the Dominions and of this country. The figures were given in the Canadian House of Parliament on the 14th March, and they show how heavily we are taxed in comparison with the great Dominion of Canada. The figures as to Income Tax were given by the Minister of Justice of the Canadian Parliament. If we change dollars into pounds, at the rate of 5 dollars to the pound, we find that on a £600 income a year Canada is taxed £8, Great Britain £49, Australia £24, and New Zealand £31. If we take an income of £4,000 a year, we find the Canadian is taxed £418, Great Britain £983, Australia £589, and New Zealand £1,129. If hon. Members will look at that publication, they will see how heavily taxed we are compared with Canada.

Mr. E. BROWN: Ought not the hon. Member to take into consideration the money paid in interest on War Debt?

Sir F. WISE: I suggest that the hon. Member should read the statement of the Canadian Minister of Justice in the "Empire Parliamentary Journal"; he will find it most interesting. There is one further matter of importance, and that is in regard to double Income Tax, which affects this country very seriously. If hon. Members will go into this matter, they will see how very heavily even certain hon. Members of this House are taxed through double Income Tax. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows all about the double taxation, because he was on the Royal Commission. In the old days, when the Income Tax was small, the question of double Income Tax was not recognised, but in these days of high Income Tax the double Income Tax is hitting us very hard. It is not only hitting the people who are liable for this double taxation, but in other ways has serious results, as, for instance, in the case of companies who have their offices in London, leaving London to go to places where their industry is built up. Suppose that there is a nitrate company in Chile. The company has, say, Chilian shareholders as well as British shareholders. Instead of conducting their affairs at their office in London, they transfer the office to perhaps Chile. I believe that Chile has just started a small income tax, but such a development affects this country. It means that when manufactures and goods are required and the office is transferred the goods, instead of being bought in this country, are purchased in such countries as the United States of America or elsewhere instead of being purchased in England.
One other point in regard to double taxation and the British Argentine railways companies. These companies were floated here and most of the stocks and shares are held in this country. The Argentine does not invest in those railways without being subject to our income tax. There is no income tax at the moment in the Argentine. So he says "Why should I invest in these railways?" If there is any threat to raise tariffs in the Argentine the Argentina has no monetary interest in the British Argentine railways and other
British Argentine Companies in that country, and he is not interested in this tariff affecting the company. It is only British capital that is involved. What we want to have is the Argentine investing his money in the British Argentine railways. This double taxation is one of the most important and difficult problems to be considered in this country. We want the foreigners' money in this country, but you have to consider whether you are going to tax at the source or at the residence.
In this connection I would refer hon. Members to the important report on this subject issued as the result of the inquiry held under the auspices of the League of Nations. Very eminent names are connected with this report. There was a representative of the Commercial University of Rotterdam, one of Turin University, one from Columbia University, New York, and Sir Josiah Stamp of the London University. The only trouble about the report is, that one has to read it three or four times to grasp what these experts have said in the report as it is so technical. I do press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of forming a Committee as soon as possible to go into all these matters. In the "Times" last week it was reported that a Committee had been set up. If this is so I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us who are on that Committee. It is a difficult technical question which affects us in this country in a large way. In conclusion I congratulate the hon. Member for South Bristol on bringing this matter of the burden of taxation forward at the present time, though perhaps he may not press his Amendment to Division.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The hon. Member has reminded the House of the heavy burden borne by the taxpayers in this country. It is for that reason that we are opposed to the preference proposals which would place further burdens on our people for the relief of the people in Canada. If I followed up that argument I might be ruled out of Order, but I would remind the House that this is the third Budget since the War, in which there have been reduced taxes. As a result of the three reductions which have taken place during the last three years, the direct taxpayer receives a larger benefit than the indirect taxpayer.
During the last three years the direct taxpayer has received yearly relief to the extent of £104,000,000, while the indirect taxpayer is only receiving relief to the extent of £60,000,000. If this Amendment was carried, the benefits to the direct taxpayer would be increased to the extent of £130,000,000, whilst the indirect taxpayer, as a result of the last three budgets, including the present, is only receiving relief to the extent of £60,000,000. I submit, therefore, from these figures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been well advised in reducing largely the burden on the indirect taxpayer this year.
But there is a very general impression that the indirect taxpayer has received practically the sole concession. In a full year the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals grant by way of relief to the indirect taxpayer £38,000,000, and to the direct taxpayer £14,000,000. For every 20s. granted by way of relief to the indirect taxpayer the direct taxpayer receives relief to the extent of 7s.. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, has not forgotton the direct taxpayer when he came to frame his Budget. Before sitting down, let me say how glad I was to have the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is hopeful that in the coming year, when he presents his next Budget, he may be in a position to grant further relief, not only to the indirect taxpayer but to the direct taxpayer as well.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The point I wish to raise is an entirely non-contentious one. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened his Budget he told us that he had been able to convert £150,000,000 five per cent. War Loan into a debt at a lower rate of interest—a 4½ per cent. loan subject at the source to income tax at the time the interest is paid. The 5 per cent. War Loan was specifically excused payment at the source in regard to Income Tax, and the income tax upon the dividends was assessed a year later. There was an arrangement made (Finance Act, 1921, Sect. 27), and I made the suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham that he should allow those who wished, to have their Income Tax taken off the interest of the 5 per cent. War Loan at the source to save trouble. The consequence is that
those who have not availed themselves of the right to have the Income Tax taken off their dividends at the source of the 5 per cent. loan will now, in a year in which they are paying Income Tax on their 4½ per cent. Conversion Loan, be compelled to pay Income Tax upon the same capital twice in the same year. That is a hardship. We have to think of little men who have a very few pounds. That is a hardship which was not foreseen when the Conversion Loan was issued. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not give some sort of amelioration, it will prevent him converting other loans in future. There is no desire on the part of the holders of the 4½ per cent. loan to escape their duty.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does this really arise on the Resolution? I should have thought not.

Mr. SAMUEL: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I entirely accept your ruling, my point is that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now moving these charges I thought this was a convenient time for him to reassure the public on the matter.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution"

Mr. JAMES HOPE: There are two points I wish to pub to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with regard to some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, of which he was a distinguished member. The first question is, Have the Government any intention of altering the income tax year? It is anomalous and inconvenient that the income tax year should be different from the financial year. Hon. Members will recall how this arose. It is a survival from the pre-Gregorian calendar. Formerly the year ran to 25th March, and that date was the end of the year. When the calendar was re-formed and the eleven days were taken away, 25th March became 5th April. The later date remains for the purpose, of income tax but not as regards the financial year. The Royal Commission thought this exceedingly inconvenient and recommended a change. Are the Government prepared to carry that recommendation into effect?
Another question concerns the profits made by foreign persons or associations through their agents in this country. So far as I know, that has not been dealt with at all, but it seems to be a very obvious reform, and one which was insisted upon by the Royal Commission. Yet years have passed and nothing has been done. Then there is the question of the assessors of Income Tax. Personally, I have no strong feeling in regard to them, but the Royal Commission felt that they were an unnecessary part of the machinery of collection, and could very well be dispensed with. Lastly, there is the anomalous position that in certain respects the duties of the Commissioners of Income Tax are administrative, while in other respects they are judicial. The Royal Commission very justly pointed one that this union of judicial and administrative functions was not for the public interest, and they recommended that the Commissioners should be relieved of the administrative functions. Various other points of the Royal Commission Report were urged at the time, and were actually put into a Revenue Bill, but nothing more was heard of it. I would be glad to know whether the Government have considered these four points, anl whether they are prepared to put any Clauses into the Finance Bill dealing with them.

12 M.

Mr. GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman will expect only a word or two in reply. It is quite true that the Royal Commission in 1919 made a large number of recommendations, and in the following year, 1920, effect was given to some of those recommendations, which involved an immediate change in the structure of the Income Tax. That is from the point of view of the exemption limit for married people and others, and certain other changes. The points which have been put by the right hon. Gentlemen fall into two categories. There are on the one side certain suggested changes dealing with foreign parties doing trade here, and also another point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned with reference to the Income Tax year, and on the other side there are proposed administrative changes dealing with assessors and the duties of the Commissioners of Income Tax. On that, I regret for many reasons my reply must be disappointing. We have proposed Amendments from the other side of the House during recent years
but unfortunately they have not been adopted, as regards the machinery of administration. There was a scheme in the Revenue Bill promoted by the Coalition Government but it excited so much opposition that it was not proceeded with.

Mr. HOPE: I do not think the opposition—unless it be in the case of the assessors—was in regard to any of the points which I have put forward.

Mr. GRAHAM: No, but the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are certain interests in the existing system which made themselves very vocal when the Revenue Bill was produced and quite frankly, at that time although I was a very warm supporter of the Bill, I did not see that it had any chance of success. I cannot at the moment say what we will be able to do in the forthcoming Finance Bill on the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but there will be opportunity in the House to move Amendments and take other steps to direct attention to these questions. We have been a very short time in office and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, some of the matters dealt with by the Royal Commission are highly controversial and have changed in form between 1919 and the present day. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Commission's findings are being very carefully borne in mind. My own impression is that at an early date the findings of the Commission must be considered unless a very large part of the work of the Commission is to go for nothing.

Mr. HOPE: May I put this point. The hon. Gentleman suggests that Amendments may be moved to the Finance Bill in Committee but, on the question of the foreign agents, at any rate, no Amendments would be in order unless something is put into the Resolution, as it would be a new charge.

Mr. GRAHAM: That, I am afraid, would be the case. On the particular question which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, there are large issues involved and a good deal of inquiry has been made into the position of foreign bodies and foreign individuals. There are far-reaching difficulties of reciprocity in this question on a discussion of which I need not embark. I only mention that fact to indicate the difficulty of achieving reform in this respect.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I do not propose to pursue the more or less minute point which has been raised by my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that we on these Benches should allow the general argument that was advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night to go unchallenged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer based his defence of this portion of his Budget on two large propositions, first of all, that he was considering the greatest interests of the greatest number in his allocation of relief between the direct and the indirect taxpayer; and, in the second place, that he was in a very real measure promoting employment. I want directly to challenge both those statements, and I am very sorry that the hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees), and those who are associated with him in this Amendment—I understand their reasons, of course—did not press it to a Division for this reason. The whole of the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rested, to my mind, on this fallacy. He was presuming that indirect taxation is paid only by those who are consumers, while direct taxation is paid only by the relatively small number upon whom it is assessed. I want directly to challenge that assumption, and I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the House at large that no greater benefit can possibly be distributed to the great masses of the people of this country than to relieve the pressure on direct taxation, which, at the present moment, is pressing so hardly on industry.
It is a total misconception of the incidence of taxation to suppose that direct-taxpayers are alone suffering from this heavy tax to-day. That is by no means the case. The very best help you can give to industry to-day is to relieve the very heavy burden which rests upon the direct taxpayers of this country. I am afraid I shall find it very difficult to convince hon. gentlemen opposite, but, with great submission, I say that that is because they have not followed this thing out. If they would follow it to its ultimate conclusion, they would see that there is an immediate benefit, and that there is an ultimate benefit, and that the ultimate benefit of relief of direct taxation would be precisely to make the wheels of industry again revolve. I do not think hon. Members opposite will attempt to deny the fact, because they
cannot, that the remissions which have been made in direct taxation have been promptly and immediately reflected in an improvement in the unemployment figures. In 1920, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) pointed out, there were 2,000,000 unemployed in this country. At that time the tax was 6s. in the £. A shilling was remitted, and the numbers dropped. I am very sorry the hon. Member for South Bristol did not push this matter to a division.

Mr. KEENS: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from the word "after" to the word "the."
What is the object of the words it is proposed to omit? It is another case, and a very bad case indeed, of retrospective legislation in taxation. Last Monday the question was before the House and on that occasion the President of the Board of Trade raised the moral question as against the legal question and appealed to this House to set aside the judgments which had been obtained in the Courts against the Crown, on the ground that bargains had been made, that services had been rendered and that all that would happen would be a return of money to a number of people who had made profits and had passed the charges on to the consumer. No such circumstances arise out of this question. About 240,000 of the smaller employed Income Tax payers are affected by the terms of this Resolution and it means to them an absolute denial of rights. Under the Finance Act, 1918, perquisites, as they were called, were liable for assessment either on the income of the last year or on an average of the three preceding years, at the option of the taxpayer. Under the Finance Act, 1922, this was abolished and the perquisites, or variable income, were brought in for assessment within the year of assessment. The people affected by this Amendment do not ask for further legislation. They accept the position, but they say that the rights they have in respect of assessments for the financial years 1920–21 and 1921–22 should remain unaffected. The Finance Act, 1922, was not retrospective in its operation, but we have now retrospective Amendments
brought into this Resolution. Why? Because in the meantime the House of Lords in the case of Macdonald v. Shand has given a decision, in a particular case, that variable fluctuating income was "perquisites" within the meaning of the Finance Act of 1918.
Briefly, the particulars of the case were that Mr. Macdonald, the Manager of Nobel's, was entitled to a fixed salary and a fluctuating bonus dependent on the profits of the year. The Revenue authorities claimed that this bonus should be assessed in the year of assessment, although it was perfectly obvious that no fluctuating bonuses of this description were impossible of assessment within the year of assessment, because at the time the taxpayer makes his return he cannot know what his income for the year will be. On the other hand it was stated by Mr. Macdonald that this fluctuating bonus was a "perquisite," that it came within the Finance Act of 1918, and that he was entitled to the option under that Act of being either assessed on the amount of income for the previous year or on the average for the previous three years. That decision was upheld by the Scottish Courts, and on appeal from the Scottish Courts to the House of Lords the decision was confirmed by that House. Following on that decision, many claims were made successfully, and repayment had been made to large numbers of taxpayers. Now, who are the persons actually affected? They are municipal servants, the servants of county and other local authorities, Government servants, and men employed on the railways or in any way where they have salaries which come under the Civil Service award, or any similar award, and are entitled to a War bonus, which varies with the cost of living A large number of these men are taxed by deduction from their salaries, and up to 1922 no account was rendered to them to show what allowance was made, or on what basis the assessment could be calculated. The case of the Civil Service and of these other people is that the case of Macdonald v. Shand does apply, and they are so advised by some of the leading specialist King's Counsel in this country These people were deprived of their rights, because having in the years 1920–21 and 1921–22, been taxed by deduction, they had no right to appeal. It is admitted—
it cannot be denied on any ground whatever—that the average for those years was less than the income for those years, for up to that point the bonus was rising, and therefore if this Resolution be carried, those taxpayers will be denied the right to which they were clearly entitled under the case of Macdonald v Shand. It is taking away from a large class of the community—one of the best classes of the community in some re-respects—the rights to which they are entitled.
The Government point of view is likely to be that the decision is not applicable, and that the cost of living bonuses are not, and cannot be, perquisites within the meaning of the Act of 1918, but that if it be applicable, retrospective legislation is necessary. Two questions have been asked in the House, the replies to which indicate the attitude of the Government. On the 25th March last the hon. Member for South-East Ham (Mr. Barnes) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question on this subject, and, in reply, the Financial Secretary said he was aware of the claims that had been made, and he was advised that the contention put forward was not sustainable in law. He added that if any attempt were made to remedy this, it would increase the inequalities. That proposition I deny, and, on the question whether these war bonuses are perquisites, may I call attention to the decision of Viscount Finlay, which seems to me to settle the question whether they are or are not. My own justification for quoting these words is that I know this particular judge is relied upon by very eminent K.C.'s as settling the question as to whether these war bonuses are perquisites within the meaning of the Act, Lord Finlay said:
The profits are to be such profits as arise from fees or other emolument in the course of executing such offices or employment. There is nothing that I can find there to denote that the fee or perquisite is to be payable on the doing of a particular act. In most cases I daresay it will be so, but it is quite enough if it is a payment which arises in the course of employment.
On that basis it is the belief of a very large number of taxpayers that they come under the head of "perquisites" in the Act of 1918. If these assessments were incorrectly made at the time, remember the amount was
deducted, and those concerned have never had the benefit. The Government decision appears to be that the assessments were rightly made at the time, and if not rightly made, then "we shall have to pass legislation barring claimants, whether right or wrong." The Financial Secretary goes on to say there are analogous cases. I submit that he will not be able to suggest any analogous cases in which taxing legislation has been made retrospective. As a matter of fact all the cases wherein there has been a change in the methods of assessment, or any similar matters, have not been retrospective; the claims have been admitted and repayment made. There was the case of Stevens versus Bousted, which was reversed by Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1918. That decision had something to do with certain expenditure in connection with foreign business to be set off against British Income Tax. It was reversed by the Act of 1918. It was never made retrospective, and claims were allowed. There was another extraordinary case, the National Provident Versus Brown. That was a case in which the flaw was subsequently discovered. That was reversed by the Finance Act of 1922.
My point is this, again, that notwithstanding the reversal by the Finance Act, 1922, the repayment was not made retrospective, and there is no real precedent for making the matter retrospective in this other sense. I suggest that this retrospective legislation is of a most vicious character. The assessments have been made by the Revenue Authorities, and by a misinterpretation of the law, and the House of Lords in the case of Macdonald versus Shand, has laid down the correct principles of assessment in this particular case. The vast majority of the small employed tax-payers have had the benefit in assessment, and the minority have not. Some are entitled to redress, and some are not. One point only is left; and that is to deal with the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to inequality. I submit that that inequality exists, and that retrospective legislation such as now contemplated will increase and not decrease that inequality, and as a measure of simple justice to a very large class of employed tax-payers I move this Amendment, and
I sincerely hope the House will insist upon carrying it.

Mr. GALBRAITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think that the House should dispose of this matter without very careful consideration, and we should make a stand against this retrospective legislation. Until quite recently there were only two cases in which retrospective legislation was considered justifiable. The first was one recognised in various Acts of Indemnity where the Government of the country had acted properly though not legally in time of stress and they had to take steps to ratify what had been done. There is the Recital in the Act of Indemnity of 1745 which puts the basis of this kind of legislation in the clearest possible terms. It lays down that
it was reasonable that acts done for the public service, thought not justifiable by the strict forms of law should be justified by Act of Parliament.
That is the first case in which this country authorised retrospective legislation. Another case is where a large, number of persons have honestly acted upon a mistaken view of the law and to prevent multiplicity of actions that view is afterwards confirmed by Act of Parliament. Apart from those two cases retrospective legislation has always been abhorred in this country. What is proposed now? In the financial year 1924–25 we are imposing retrospectively upon a small portion of the community composed of poor persons further taxation than is borne by other members of the community. For the financial years 1919–20 and 1921–22 these persons will have to pay an additional amount of Income Tax contrary to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Macdonald v. Shand. I do not think that such a course has before been adopted by the House of Commons and I ask hon. members not to adopt a course like that which is contrary to every precedent adopted up to now in this country.

Mr. GRAHAM: I regret very much that an important, and from many points of view difficult, subject has been reached at so late an hour. I ask for the patience of hon. Members, largely because, as the House knows, we must get the Resolutions to-night as the business for the week is now arranged. This case undoubtedly raises the question of retrospective legis-
lation. Let me say at once that our attitude towards retrospective legislation is that it should be avoided as far as possible, unless conditions which justify retrospective legislation are fulfilled. I am going very briefly to summarise the facts of this case, and then I hope to be able to show the House that if this Resolution be not passed in the form in which we have submitted it, the injustice resulting from the absence of a Resolution of this kind would be very much greater than any hardship which can be inflicted by its incorporation in the coming Bill. The simple facts of this case have been summarised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Keens) who moved the Amendment. The position is that in the action Macdonald v. Shand, Shand was employed at a salary and at certain remuneration by way of perquisite based on the profits of the company. He was entitled to a salary of £4,000 a year at least, but the material point is that his perquisite was a fluctuating element based on the profits of the concern. There was, of course, no doubt about the salary itself being on a basis of the year of assessment and, according to the legislation which preceded the Income Tax Act, 1918 and which was continued by that Act, he was entitled to have the bonus, or the perquisite, assessed either on the basis of the preceding year or on the average of three years. It so happened that he was, in the first instance, assessed on salary, on the usual basis then, with the average of this perquisite. Notice was subsequently served on him of the assessment of the perquisite on the basis of one year. The case was heard in June, 1922. The Court of Session in Scotland decided in favour of this income tax payer and the position was subsequently upheld in April, 1923, on appeal to the House of Lords.
I summarise these facts to direct the attention of the House to what appears to me and the Government to be a substantial difference between what was really involved in the case, and what is now put forward under the head of war bonus, to which it is proposed to apply this decision. This was a perquisite fluctuating with the profits of the company; it was something irregular and indeterminate in character, and certainly it was far removed from the position of the war bonus of civil servants, rising
and falling in keeping with the rise and fall in the cost of living. If hon. Members will bear with me, they will see that, in fact, the bulk of these cases turns upon civil servants who are claiming the benefit of the judgment in the Macdonald v. Shand case. There is a very great distinction, in my judgment, in this matter—in the mere facts of the case—the distinction between a business perquisite, or profit of that kind, and the Civil Service war bonus fluctuating with the rise or fall in the cost of living.
After this decision was known claims were put forward, particularly by classes of civil servants in this country, and I think also by certain other people in kindred occupations, arguing that their war bonus was entitled to be averaged in the manner which had been settled by this decision. Let me draw attention here to an undoubted difficulty in the case of civil servants who are involved. The House knows that the practice of assessing Income Tax on civil servants differs materially from the practice of fixing Income Tax for other classes in the community—in fact, the procedure is archaic and out of date, and there is always the question of whether these Departmental assessments have become final and conclusive, which is very important, as everyone knows who is familiar with Income Tax terms. We have to recognise this indeterminate character of Civil Service assessments. There is not the least doubt that the overwhelming majority of civil servants in this country accepted the basis of the year of assessment. It never occurred to them that it could be applied to war bonus given in respect of the rise and fall of the cost of living; that it could be put forward for the purpose of average which did not apply to the salaries of the group. The war bonus was regarded as a kind of part of the salary in a sense in which we cannot regard the perquisite in Macdonald v. Shand.
Of course it is perfectly obvious to them that if we are to regard the war bonus of civil servants as a perquisite, very interesting questions will arise when consolidation of salary and war bonus is faced. That will be the case for civil servants and other people in this country, and I am perfectly sure they themselves would not describe it as a perquisite in that sense. There is an indeterminate character in the class of assessment, but
in so far as assessments were final and conclusive, and in so far as these have been final and conclusive for other people in the community, I do not think there can be any doubt about the position. But there was the Act of 1918. That, as I have said, merely continued the legislation on this point. Rule 4 says a perquisite may be assessed either on the profits of the preceding year or on an average of the previous three years, I do not think, when we go into the facts, that this war bonus comes into the category at all. It must be viewed as salary, as part of the major thing which quite clearly was assessable on the basis of the year of assessment.
That brings me to the remaining stages of this Question. The House knows that in 1922, in the Finance Act of that year, Rule 4 was abolished or repealed, so that quite clearly this Question cannot arise in any year after that date. That is perfectly plain. I think it is common ground now that as regards the period before that date it cannot possibly apply to any assessments on becoming final and conclusive, because the House will admit it is the settled practice in the Income Tax in this country that, where an assessment has become final and conclusive, no subsequent legal decision has ever been used to reopen it, and I do not think anyone could put forward a proposition of that kind. If these facts are admitted it becomes plain that only a limited class can get the benefit of the absence of a Resolution of this kind and the subsequent Clause of the Finance Bill, that is, only that class in the community whose assessments have not become final and conclusive, and the class whose assessments for years prior to 1922, became final and conclusive. When I have put the case in that way I think I may ask the House to see the inevitable irregularity that would arise. A section in the Civil Service would get the benefit to the detriment, it must be, of other civil servants, or at any rate other civil servants would not have the same claim, and outside the Civil Service only that section whose assessments were not final and conclusive would have any place at all. You would, therefore, have a manifest irregularity and real injustice among the very same class of taxpayers. I think I have only to put that to the
House to see that this Resolution is justified.
It is my duty to tell the House quite frankly that it is quite possible, if this Clause were not incorporated in the Finance Bill, that we should have to find £3,000,000 to meet these Civil Service claims. That is a large sum of money, but the House would not grudge it if the claim were just, or if it resulted in equity. What the cost would be in other spheres I do not know, but undoubtedly it would be very large. So that both on the practical case on what would emerge if we did not take this step in the Finance Bill, and on the actual cost in the absence of a clause of this kind I think I have made a case for this retrospective legislation. If we do not pass this Clause, which is really declaratory to a large extent and not retrospective, we shall inflict a great injustice. On that ground I ask the House to adopt it.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: We are so accustomed to the versatility and ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman that we are not surprised to find how he has treated this question, and if I may I would congratulate the Government on having a Financial Secretary who can not only fulfil the duties of his own office, but other offices as well. The hon. Gentleman has said quite accurately that this is a difficult question if we are to dive into the repealed sections of the Income Tax Acts and the meaning of phrases familiar to persons who have to deal with Income Tax such as "final and conclusive." I wish that we could get our minds fixed on the essential question, and that is whether retrospective legislation is justified or can be justified upon the grounds which the hon. Gentleman has suggested as justifying this retrospective legislation. I think I am right in saying that his defence was based on two grounds. The first was that if the clause was not introduced in the Finance Bill, or a clause to the effect of the Resolution, inequality will be produced amongst taxpayers who ought to be equal. The second is that the cost will be considerable. The second defence moves me not at all. Retrospective legislation is justified or not according to the merits as affecting the individual citizen or taxpayer who is affected by the legislation, and except in a very clear case such as was involved in the War Charges (Validity) Bill I think the cost is not a matter that ought to
affect this House. When you are dealing with hundreds of millions it may be that the House is left with no alternative, but when it is dealing with £3,000,000 different considerations arise.
The second defence, or the first in the order in which the hon. Gentleman dealt with it, was that of inequality. I think there was a little hiatus between the first and the second parts of his argument. I understood the first part of his argument to be this, that the case of Macdonald v. Shand in the House of Lords which decided that the addition by way of bonus to the salary of the subject was a perquisite would not apply to the War bonus dealt with in this Resolution, and therefore none of the persons in the Civil Service who are complaining of the retrospective legislation can rely on that decision. If that be right, I do not understand the object of this Resolution. Either these additions to the salaries of the civil servants are perquisites coming within the decision of the House of Lords applying to the repealed Rule 4 of Schedule E, or they are not perquisites which Macdonald v. Shand touch at all. The hon. Gentleman tells us that the war bonus to meet the cost of living is altogether on a different footing from the war bonus depending upon the revenue or profits of a company. He goes on to tell us that really very large issues are involved, and that a very large sum—as much as £3,000,000—will be involved in the finances of the forthcoming year. Although I have the greatest respect for the legal knowledge and advice which the hon. Gentleman is able to tender, I really think the Government must make up their minds upon which leg they are going to stand. Is Macdonald v. Shand a decision which really has anything to do with the Civil Service interest in this question or not? If it does touch their case, it is perfectly plain that, in so far as they are taxpayers as to whom assessments are not final and conclusive, they are entitled to certain relief which, having regard to their position in life, may be really a valuable sum to them. If they are entitled to the benefits of this decision and intend to reap the fruits of it, according to all the principles which with lip service at any rate we hold dear in this House, they are entitled to take advantage of that judgment, and we ought not to deprive them of it merely because it is to cost us a small
sum. I do not understand why we should deprive them of something to which they are entitled because, owing perhaps to their diligence or perhaps to accident, they will be more fortunate than other persons. The way to produce equality is not to bring everybody down to the level where all will be exposed to the full rigour of the blasts of the Income Tax Commissioners. The real way to produce equality in relation to the Income Tax is, if necessary, to relieve certain classes and re-open the assessments which have been made upon them. If you want to reduce inequality which inadvertently has been made and which has exposed them to a liability that did not exist according to the House of Lords decision, assuming that it applies, you do not want retrospective legislation. I cannot accept for a moment that we are entitled in this House to pass retrospective legislation merely in order to reduce everybody to the same level of equality and to squeeze taxes out of them when they are liable to pay only because the Income Tax authorities desire to see them subjected to a liability which it was hoped they already were exposed to, but in fact were not.
The question as to whether Macdonald v. Shand applies is purely a legal question. It is not one I feel very competent to discuss, because it was only this evening, half an hour ago, that I began to look at this question and what it involves. Wherever I see a question of Income Tax I run away from it, because it involves one in such complications; but having looked it up, I do not quite agree that Macdonald v. Shand does not apply. Lord Birkenhead, who was dealing with the case, said that Rule 4, Schedule E, was intended to deal with the case where profits varied from year to year. Rule 1, Schedule E, deals with the tax taken from a fixed income. When you come to Rule 4, you are dealing with conditions which vary from year to year, and in the interests of the taxpayer the Legislature said they might be assessed at the three years' average. If you offer that distinction it is quite easy to see that war pensions may vary exceedingly from year to year, and ought to be dealt with under Rule 4 on a three years' average and not upon the receipts of that particular year. At any rate, that was the intention of the Legislature, and I venture to think
that both from the argument of the Lord Advocate, who argued the case on behalf of the appellants, and the speeches of Lords Birkenhead and Finlay, it will be seen that there is a very good case indeed for arguing that the case of these persons is affected by the decision in Macdonald v. Shand. If that be the case—and I appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House without any party feeling, because really this is not a party question—can any hon. Member taking hold of an individual case say "It is quite true you have a good case according to law, but it is necessary to change that law in order to get a little more out of the taxpayers, who are comparatively poor men." They were told, "You must pay something which you were not liable up to this time to pay in respect of the past two years' income." The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says Smith ought to pay in order that he may be on an equality with Brown, who unfortunately has been subjected to a tax which the law did not really impose upon him. I think it is a wrong principle. Or we say to Smith, "You must pay, because besides yourself there are 250,000 other persons who have to pay, which involves the country in a loss of one, two or three million pounds." I do not think that will appeal to Smith very much, and I do not think it will appeal to this House. It is a rather unfortunate disposition of this House, and it is a tendency to which I am afraid officials, and people connected with officials, are too easily disposed, to think we should correct by legislation the errors and slips of the past. We ought really to be on our guard against this increasing tendency. We have had it in the recent legislation, and in the War Charges (Validity) Bill. Every single case in which it can be brought against any party or any section of the House that retrospective legislation has been involved, makes the case stronger to-night against taking a single further step in that direction. We must make it plain sooner or later that this House is not prepared to cure mistakes in legislation retrospectively. We do not want to spare anybody, but we will, once and for all, now that we have got out of the atmosphere of the War, I hope beyond the the period of the war elements,
get back to sound lines. If this Clause is necessary in the Finance Bill at all, let us say, at any rate that people who are protected by the law of 1921–1922 shall be entitled to the protection which it gives, and shall not be subjected to the risk of legislation by some future Parliament. What makes the case a little worse is that these are small men. I would rather see the Super-tax increased by a shilling or two shillings than that retrospective legislation should be imposed on the small men who can ill afford to bear this loss. The men who are affected are just the people who are touched by a difference of £3, £4 or £5 a year. They are men, not of £700 a year, but of £300 or £400 a year, with children to bring up. Feeling as I do upon this general principle of retrospective legislation, my objection to this particular Resolution is reinforced by the unpleasant feeling that we are taking action against the small man, in whose defence I think any Member might desire to be eloquent and persistent.

1.0 A.M.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think Members in all parts of the House will agree that it is extremely unfortunate that we should be discussing such a difficult and important subject at this unseemly hour of the morning. The speeches, both of the Financial Secretary and of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, will, I think, have convinced everybody that this is a subject of some perplexity. Many hon. Members will agree with me that, in dealing with this subject, the exposition of the Financial Secretary was not quite up to his usual standard, and his failure to reach that standard naturally raises suspicion in our minds as to the soundness of his case; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite went on to argue the case, there must be general agreement that it would be very unfortunate if the Government sought to adhere to the course which is set out in this Resolution without further consideration. In the first place, the Financial Secretary did not seem to be at all clear as to whether the decision in Macdonald v. Shand applied here at all. He argued, in the first place, that it did apply, but he did not seem to me to argue with conviction, and I think most hon. members who listened to the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip)
will be inclined to agree with me that the decision in Macdonald v. Shand, though dealing with a different set of subjects, covers the case of these civil servants who receive part of their income in war bonus which varies in accordance with the cost of living.
As I understand that decision, it is perfectly generally established both by the judgments of Lord Finlay and of Lord Birkenhead that it covered the case of those whose circumstances we are discussing to-night. But having argued that the case of Macdonald v. Shand did not apply, the Financial Secretary then went on to argue on the basis that it did apply, and he sought to convince the House that here was a case where retrospective legislation was justified. On what grounds? It was on the ground that, if this Amendment were adopted, we would be introducing a new inequality—that if one anomaly was renewed nevertheless a greater inequality would be introduced. I confess I did my best to follow the Financial Secretary to ascertain what exactly this inequality was, but he did not make it clear to my mind, and a similar impression, I think, was left on the minds of many hon. members. It may be the fault of our intelligence at this hour of the morning, but in these circumstances I suggest that it would be better for the Government to reconsider the matter and give the House an opportunity on another occasion, on the Committee stage of the Bill, to deal with this matter.
There was the further question as to the people who were affected by it. I confess that I did not feel sympathy with many of the people who were affected by the War Charges (Validity) Bill. They were people who had done very well out of the War, and therefore could not be said to have lost anything at ail. But the people who are affected by this retrospective provision, as the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol said, are small men; they are not rich men, they are not people who can be accused of exploiting the community. It is, therefore, with some surprise that we find a Labour Government introducing retrospective provisions to apply to people in that position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted, when introducing his Budget, that he was conferring benefit upon the small professional class of men by certain remissions such as the Inhabited House Duty, and most people
argued that this class was deserving of consideration. Acting on that, one would have expected a Labour Government, if it was going to legislate retrospectively, that they would not have acted in this way towards people who were in the position of the smaller professional men, and who would be naturally entitled to their consideration. A point has been made as to the cost. The sum at stake is said to be £3,000,000—a considerable sum—almost the amount of the surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has left over after his remissions. One can understand, therefore, that he is reluctant to part with such a large slice of that comparatively small sum. Nevertheless, I think the House will not be satisfied with the reply simply that because it costs three millions we must agree to these retrospective provisions. The general feeling will be that the hon. and learned Gentleman for Central Bristol was right; that in a matter of this kind, affecting over 200,000 men of small means, a matter of £3,000,000 should not stand in the way of an act of justice in order to preserve what rights the Government should be prepared to make even in this concession. In view of these considerations and the difficulty of the question, and the large interests involved, I hope the Government will indicate that they are prepared to reconsider the matter, and possibly take another line, when the question comes before the Committee or the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. GRAHAM: If I may just for one minute intervene by the leave of the House, I would say at once that I very much regret that this question has been reached at this hour. I quite recognise that there are important considerations that other hon. Members would like to discuss. Let me say, just in a sentence, that we are advised that the claims regarding the civil servants is not sustainable in law. When the Clause is actually in the Finance Bill hon. Members can discuss it, and probably they would wish to have the opportunity and benefit of a statement from one of the Law Officers of the Crown. I would appeal to the House to let us have these Resolutions to-night, because, obviously, if we do not get them we are in a very difficult position. We have only until to-morrow night, and if hon. Members will agree to them I will undertake to look into this very carefully before the Finance Bill is introduced. A
very full statement will be made on the Second Reading, and on the later stages there will be ample opportunity for hon. Members to move any Amendments they care to propose.

Sir T. INSKIP: When the hon. Member says that Macdonald v. Shand does not apply, is that the advice for the Law Officers; and, if so, are they running any very serious risk in not taking this Resolution?

Mr. GRAHAM: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will not press me on that point, because I would like to make a further investigation. If the House will give us the Resolution, I do assure hon. Members that there will be ample opportunity later for a full discussion and, of course, a vote. They will not be prejudiced in any way.

Mr. KEENS: There is considerable difficulty, because this is felt to be a serious matter. It was arranged that it should be pressed, and I am not at all sure that the olive branch of the Government should not have been in a much more definite form than it is.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Colonel Wedgwood): The Government will promise to the House that if the Resolution is given now, they will, before the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, go into the whole of this question with the Law Officers and see how far the case that the hon. Gentleman has made can be met. I appeal to him to meet the Government so far. If we give a vote now, we shall not have the benefit of the Law Officers who are not here.

HON. MEMBERS: Why are they not here?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hon. Members understand that they cannot always be here.

Mr. KEENS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 90.

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[1.12 a.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Finney, V. H.
Keens, T.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Foot, Isaac
Kirkwood, D.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Lansbury, George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gillett, George M.
Leach, W.


Alstead, R.
Gorman, William
Lindley, F. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Gosling, Harry
Loverseed, J. F.


Banton, G.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Lunn, William


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Maden, H.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay


Black, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marley, James


Broad, F. A.
Groves, T.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Grundy, T. W.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Meyler, Lieut. Colonel H. M.


Brunner, Sir J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mond, H.


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Buckie, J.
Hardie, George D.
Morse, W. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Harris, Percy A.
Muir, John W.


Church, Major A. G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Murray, Robert


Climie, R.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Nixon, H.


Cluse, W. S.
Haycock, A. W.
O'Grady, Captain James


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Owen, Major G.


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hindle, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Crittall, V. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Phillipps, Vivian


Darbishire, C. W.
Hobhouse, A. L.
Potts, John S.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Purcell, A. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hoffman, P. C.
Raffan, P. W.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Rea, W. Russell


Dickson, T.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richards, R.


Dukes, C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Royce, William Stapleton


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Royle, C.


Egan, W. H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Falconer, J.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Scrymgeour, E.


Scurr, John
Sullivan, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Sunlight, J.
Westwood, J.


Sexton, James
Sutton, J. E.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Sherwood, George Henry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thornton, Maxwell R.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sitch, Charles H.
Tout, W. J.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Willison, H.


Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Varley, Frank B.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Windsor, Walter


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)
Wright, W.


Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Warne, G. H.



Spoor, B. G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stephen, Campbell
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Kennedy.


Stranger, Innes Harold
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Remer, J. R.


Apsley, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harland, A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hartington, Marquess of
Savery, S. S.


Becker, Harry
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Shepperson, E. W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Blundell, F. N.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Bonwick, A.
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Stanley, Lord


Burman, J. B.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Steel, Samuel Strang


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Howard, Hon. D. (Cumberland, North)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cassels, J. D.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Clayton, G. C.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cope, Major William
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lyle, Sir Leonard
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wise, Sir Fredric


Dawson, Sir Philip
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Duckworth, John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Raine, W.
Sir Thomas Inskip and Mr.


England, Colonel A.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Galbraith.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.




Resolution agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HOPE: I doubt very much if any adequate explanation has been given of this Resolution. I do not remember any explanation in the Chancellor's original speech, and I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give some explanation as to whether there is any change in the law and what is the need of the change. We have just passed a Resolution saying that all the resolutions relating to Income Tax must be the same as last year, and I presume, therefore, that this Resolution must be different. Does it make any change in the law? The position is somewhat obscure.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I suppose this relates to Sub-section (5) of Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1920. If so, it is a clumsy way of getting over the difficulty of interpreting that Sub-section. I understand that when United Kingdom Companies trade with the Dominions and Income Tax is payable by the United Kingdom Companies upon their profits, if a Dominion charges Income Tax the amount of such Income Tax is allowed as relief by the British Treasury to the extent of half the amount of the British Income Tax. When the Act of 1920 was passed, the object was to save British Companies, having their profits twice surcharged, and that the ordinary shareholders should have the relief. If I am right, here again we have something to put right. By the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Sheldred versus South African Breweries it was decided that by some ambiguity where there were
preference and ordinary shareholders the relief goes not only to ordinary, but to preference shareholders. That was against the intention of the Act, and the result was that in many cases where preference shareholders have a fixed rate of interest they will pay a less late of tax to the Treasury than they ought. I do not see why the Treasury does not take a straightforward line and introduce a new Clause in the Finance Bill instead of sliding this thing through. The new Clause should exempt preference shareholders with a fixed preferential dividend from the operation of Sub-section (5) of Section 27 of the Act of 1920. I can see that there is the difficulty that the Treasury might have to refund money that it has never received. On the other hand, if the Treasury does not bring in a new Clause to exempt preference shareholders with fixed rates of dividend from the relief which Sheldrake versus South African Breweries has given, we shall fee in the peculiar position that in some cases they will be able to escape payment of the full Income Tax which they are entitled to pay and throw the balance of their burden on the ordinary shareholders.

Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend will not expect me at this hour to deal with these very difficult points in income tax administration. I frankly confess I would require notice of a case of that kind, in order to be able to give a reply that is worth anything at all, I will, however, undertake to look into that. The Resolution simply deals with what is known as the Ritson case—with problems that arise when the rate of tax changes. If the House will forgive a fuller explanation, I think I shall be able on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill or later to explain this Clause quite clearly.

Mr. HOPE: Docs the Resolution make a charge, and whom does it charge?

Mr. GRAHAM: That I cannot reply to straight off. Our understanding was that this would not be raised to-night.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what was the understanding?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Quite simply, it was this: When we consented to have a half-day for discussing these Resolutions
instead of going on all night on the previous occasion, we understood from hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should be able to get through the work in the half-day.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not in the least what the Financial Secretary said. He said there was an understanding that this particular Resolution should not be discussed this evening.

Mr. GRAHAM: No. I did not, I hope, convey that impression. We understood that Mr. Speaker was to call on certain Amendments to the Resolution. There was no Amendment on this Resolution and no Member gave me notice that he intended to raise it. I agree he was not bound to do so, but if he had given me notice I should, of course, have been prepared to reply.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman that he is unable to give an adequate explanation of this Resolution, and that we are asked to pass this Resolution in the absence of an adequate explanation? If so, it seems to me to be an absolute farce to submit these Resolutions to the House at all, and we might as well dispense with the present stage. Surely the best suggestion would be to move to adjourn the Debate?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps I can give an explanation. This new Clause is to meet this particular difficulty. Hon. Members know that dividends are marked less Income Tax, which is appropriated for the period over which the company have been trading. When the Income Tax was reduced from 5s. to 4s. 6d. in the £ there were deductions from these dividends.

Mr. SAMUEL: On preference shares.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: All dividend warrants, not only preference shares. The deductions were at different rates, they were at any rate in my case. The point was this, that certain cute people observed that they might recover a larger sum by reason of the fact that Income Tax was deducted at or near 5s. though they were claiming for the year in which the tax was at the 4s. 6d. rate. They said "We want all these calculations made afresh on the basis of the extra fourpence or threepence a year." They were enabled to do so owing to
some legal decision which gave them the power or was supposed to give them the power to do so, and it is to prevent this extraordinary complication that the proposal was made. As it is obviously an extremely complicated case would it not be better if we deferred debate at this unseemly hour until we have the Finance Bill before us and know every detail. I hope that will be the view of the House, because it is quite impossible to hasten this complicated subject; and at the same time it is absolutely essential that we should get the Resolution to-night.

Sir T. INSKIP: Over and over again to-night we heard from the Treasury Bench that it was essential to get these Resolutions to-night. There is something, just as essential as the passing of resolutions. They keep telling us that, but will any of them on the Treasury Bench get up, and explain it? I have much doubt whether the hon. Member knows what the Resolution means.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is not the only pebble on the beach.

Sir T. INSKIP: It is quite obvious that the hon. Gentleman who made that last interruption is in the same position as most of us and the House does not understand what this Resolution is. The hilarity which hon. Members behind the Government are displaying on this Resolution is a strange commentary on the fitness of Labour to govern. There is nothing so congenial to supporters of the Government, if we may judge from the last five months, as passing resolutions which they submit to us who do not share the gifts of providence that they have. This is really a matter of some seriousness and we are not merely going to be put off by the inability of hon. Members to do anything to clarify these matters. I can understand hon. Members on the Back Benches displaying that ignorance, but surely on the Front Bench, which is occupied by 14 Ministers, there should be one, at any rate, able to get up and give a more intelligible explanation than was given by the Chancellor of the Duchy. Whether we shall have a better explanation when we come to the Finance Bill, nobody can tell. It is desirable to place on record that we are asked to treat this stage and the next stage as a farce, because the House
is asked to pass a Resolution which they cannot explain themselves.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The remark the Chancellor of the Duchy made in regard to what might be said to be a breach of faith cannot be allowed to pass. There was no breach of faith. We were given half a day extra to discuss the Budget Resolutions, but we did not say what time they would come to an end. It is largely due to the Amendments moved by the Liberal party that we are late. There is one other point, made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He said something that might have given rise to the belief that we ought to have given notice of everything that is read.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Let him put up his dolls and knock them down.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: All these Resolutions must be put to the House, and every point must be raised. The real point of the matter is that the Government cannot give a reply. We can understand that, and we can sympathise to a certain extent, but I hope they will not try to get out of it by saying it is a breach of faith.

Mr. GRAHAM: I should be sorry if there were any misunderstanding on this matter. These Resolutions are in many cases complicated, and in order to economise time we moved the Resolutions, and there were selected Amendments, although a question can of course be raised on any Resolution. I did not anticipate there would be any difficulty, otherwise I should have taken care that the information was ready to be given to the House. I can, however, in a very few sentences, if the House will allow me to look at this document, tell hon. Members exactly what is meant. There is established a practice, as the House knows, of dealing with claims for repayment of Income Tax in respect of personal relief on the basis of the standard rate of tax in force for the year to which the claim relates, whether that rate is greater or less than the rate in force for the preceding year. I can illustrate the point by referring to a case which is perhaps typical of the kind of difficulty that was raised in the Ritson litigation. Take a taxpayer whose total income for the year 1922–23 was £1,000. He has received as part of that income dividend to the amount of
£2 paid in respect of a period from September, 1921, to September, 1922, from which tax was rightly deducted at the rate of 5s. 6d. in lieu of 5s., the deduction amounting in all to 11s. instead of 10s. The Board of Inland Revenue acted upon the usual principle in the matter of this personal relief, and had only given the taxpayer relief of tax on the amount of his personal allowances at the standard rate in force, which say in this particular case was 5s. in respect of £275 taxable income. There is a good deal of other explanation of an intricate character, but, in short, it comes to this, that there is a doubt whether the repayment on that £275 should be at 5s. in the £ or whether it should take account of a small fraction of income taxed at a higher rate. The Board very definitely takes the view in favour of the old practice. It had a perfectly general application. It benefits the taxpayer a little when the rate of tax is increased and similarly prejudices the taxpayer when the rate is reduced This Resolution simply tries to regularise the position.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: We are very much obliged for the intervention of the Financial Secretary and for his explanation, which is perfectly clear as far as it goes. At least, it is clear enough to show us that this is a piece of retrospective legislation of the very worst kind. We were first given a very frivolous explanation, which was no explanation at all, by the Chancellor of the Duchy. The House should again make a protest against retrospective legislation of this kind, especially as it is hidden away more or less in a Resolution where its retrospective character does not appear on the face of it. The attitude of the Financial Secretary towards retrospective legislation is the attitude which other Governments have adopted towards such legislation from the beginning of time—that it is bad, but in certain circumstances it may be convenient.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am interested to find the Noble Lord is now so much opposed to retrospective legislation. I have a recollection of an endeavour to pass a good deal last Session, and, unlike the present Government, the Noble Lord and his colleagues on that bench frequently never rose to reply at all. A great deal of complaint has come from that bench
to-night as to the nature of the replies given by the present Government. The hon. and gallant Member who is Chief Whip of the Unionist party was loud in his complaint. The Financial Secretary at least does attempt to give a reply, but right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members opposite, when they were in a difficulty, simply sat tight and held their tongues. I remember on one occasion, on a Financial Resolution, when an endeavour was made to get a ruling from the Government on a matter affecting Scotland, the hon. and learned Member who represented Scotland in this House got up to reply, and he was immediately closured by a colleague—the Minister for Agriculture—who realised that, if the Minister replied, the whole case would be given away by the Government. It seems to me that we are living under a better dispensation. The present Government are not supported by such a docile and servile majority as was the late Government. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, 12 months ago, supported the late Government, no matter whether they gave an explanation or not, or whether they were capable of giving an explanation, and still more frequently when hon. Gentlemen behind them were incapable of understanding any explanation. Of course, under these circumstances, whenever the Government decided it was necessary to obtain the Closure the hon. Gentleman behind them, submissively, tamely, and without any question, were willing to accept the Closure. But this is a different situation. There is free debate in this present House. Unless hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench are willing to give reasonable consideration to argument advanced from various parts of the House, either discussion does not end or further opportunities are taken to ventilate the question. I do not pretend to understand the Resolution which is before the House. I was not one of those Members who interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip). I was listening with great attention. I thought he understood it.

Sir T. INSKIP: indicated dissent.

Mr. BANKS: Advice for nothing!

Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) talking about getting
advice for nothing. When we come into the House we give it without money and without price. I have observed that when the hon. Member for Central Bristol has got a good point, and is sure of it, he makes the most of it, and he does it very well, as he did on the previous Resolution. There he had a point which he did understand, and I agree with him.

HON. MEMBERS: Did you vote?

Mr. PRINGLE: I did not vote against it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must come to the point.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am very sorry that these irrelevant interruptions have led me somewhat astray, and I have not been able to reach the subject of the Resolution. I was anxious to discover what exactly was retrospective in this particular Resolution. Undoubtedly, in point of form, it is of a retrospective character. As the Noble Lord pointed out, it purports to state that, in relation to the repayment of Income Tax, this Resolution will operate whether the year of assessment ends before or after the 30th day of April, 1924. While it is retrospective, we have had no clear statement, either from the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol or a member of the Government, as to the exact nature of its retrospective effect. We cannot say whether it is going to be injurious to the taxpayer, or to what extent. The object of the Resolution, so far as I understand it, is to deal with an anomaly discovered in a recent judgment. An hon. Friend behind me asks me to describe the point. Like the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol, I have not had an opportunity of perusing the judgment and considering it, and I cannot respond to the invitation. We know there is a somewhat retrospective effect, and as the Financial Secretary is perusing the document and making himself somewhat better acquainted with the principles at issue, he may be able to tell us whether it is retrospective and the amount of money which is involved.
We have always been interested, in relation to such efforts in retrospective legislation, to ascertain what the cost is going to be to the Exchequer. In the War Charges (Validity) Bill we know that it ran up to over £100,000,000, and it was
a matter of grave concern to the Treasury that some retrospective legislation should it be passed. On the Resolution we have been discussing earlier to-night, the Financial Secretary has intimated that the cost, if the provision was not adopted, would be £3,000,000. What I wish to ask the Financial Secretary is, how much is involved in the present provision? Is it a matter of millions or only of hundreds of thousands, and what class of taxpayer will be affected by it? I know the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol was gravely concerned about the smaller men affected by the last Resolution. I am sure the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the House, both above and below the Gangway, will be very much affected according to how this a provision affects a large sum of money, or whether it affects rich or poor tax-payers. These are two practical questions; they do not raise any legal subtleties at all. They do not introduce the complexities of Income Tax law and they deal with certain particular difficulties. Who are the classes of taxpayers affected, and what are the amounts of money involved? I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give an answer.

REPORT [1s May].

AMENDMENT OF LAW.

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions and upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means upon the 6th day of May, and agreed to by the House upon that day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. William Graham.

FINANCE BILL,

"to grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and the National
Debt, and to make further provision in connection with Finance," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

2.0 A.M.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Birstall Urban District Council, which was presented on the 8th April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Mansfield, which was presented on the 7he April, and published, be approved, subject to the omission of the word 'section,' in line 4, of paragraph (1), of Clause 31, and the insertion in place thereof of the words 'sections 4 and.'

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Marple Urban
District Council, which was presented on the 15th January and published, be approved, subject to the modification proposed by the Select Committee appointed to consider the Draft Order.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Newbury, which was presented on the 8th April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Penryn Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 7th April and published, be approved."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven, of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Two o'Clock a.m.